No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Personalisation of Social Care: How Can a Healthcare System Be Adapted to the Specific Characteristics of People with Multiple Impairments? The case of the care of people with “rare disabilities” in France
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 July 2022
Abstract
Since the 1980s, “personalisation” is at the centre of the evolution of disability policies and more generally of the Welfare state. It refers on one hand to the question of self-determination through the allocation of personalised budgets, and on the other to the adaptation of care to the specificities of a given person, through the development of “person-centred” care. In this article we study the issue of the personalisation of care from a point of view intermediate to these two dimensions, that of the transformation of social care organisations. Using the example of care provided to people with multiple impairments in France, we analyse how new social care organisations have addressed the diversity and specificity of the needs of these people. This analysis thus proposes a new way to think about the personalisation of policy responses implemented by the welfare state.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Barnes, C. (2012), ‘Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present and future’, in Watson, N., Roulstone, A. and Thomas, C. (eds), Routledge handbook of disability studies, London & New York: Routledge, 12–29.Google Scholar
Barral, C. (2007), ‘Disabled Persons’Associations in France’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 9 (3-4), 214–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barral, C., Paterson, F., Stiker, H. J. and Chauvière, M. (eds.), (2000), L’institution du handicap. Le rôle des associations, Rennes: Les Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Boumot, M.-C., Lelièvre, F. and Tallec, A. (2005), ‘La population en situation de handicap visuel en France. Importance, caractéristiques, incapacités fonctionnelles et difficultés sociales. Une exploitation des enquêtes HID 1998 et 1999’, Nantes : Observatoire régional de la santé des Pays de la Loire, https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/handicapvisuel.pdf. [accessed 08.12.2021].Google Scholar
Buton, F. (2009), L’administration des faveurs: l'état, les sourds et les aveugles (1789-1885). Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capuano, C. (2012), ‘"Aux origines des aidants familiaux”. Les transformations de l’aide familiale aux personnes âgées, handicapées et malades mentales en France dans la seconde moitié du vingtième siècle’, Research report for the MiRe/DREES and the CNSA.Google Scholar
Chapireau, F. (2008), ‘Trente ans après : la révolution psychiatrique italienne en perspective’, L'Évolution Psychiatrique, 73 (3), 517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claveranne, J.-P., Robelet, M., Piovesan, D., Cret, B., Jaubert, G. and Guilhot, N. (2012), ‘La construction sociale du marché du handicap: entre concurrence associative et régulation politique (1943-2009)’, Lyon: IFROSS – Université Lyon 3, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00756821v2/document. [accessed 08.12.2021].Google Scholar
D’Alessio, S. (2012), Inclusive education in Italy. Rotterdam: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
Daly, M. (2002), ‘Care as a Good for Social Policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 31 (2), 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. and Lewis, J. (2000), ‘The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states’, The British journal of sociology, 51 (2), 281–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daly, M. and Westwood, S. (2018), ‘Asset-based approaches, older people and social care: an analysis and critique’, Ageing and Society, 38 (6), 1087–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duygun, T. (2020), ‘Policy translation in Turkish disability policy: The role and limitations of international organisations’, Global Social Policy, 20 (3), 305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961), Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates, New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Henckes, N. (2018), ‘Les deux désinstitutionalisations. Psychiatrie, sciences sociales et modernisation après la seconde guerre mondiale’, in Coutant, I. and Wang, S. (eds), Santé mentale et souffrance psychique : un objet pour les sciences sociales, Paris: CNRS Editions, 143–160.Google Scholar
Hudson, B. (1991), ‘Deinstitutionalisation: What Went Wrong’, Disability, Handicap and Society, 6 (1), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittay, E. F. (2007), ‘Beyond Autonomy and Paternalism: The Caring Transparent Self’ in T. Denier, Nys, Y. and Vandevelde, T. (eds), Autonomy and Paternalism. Reflections on the Theory and Practice of Health Care, Leuven: Peeters, 23–70.Google Scholar
Lelièvre, F., Sander, M.-S. and Tallec, A. (2007), ‘Le handicap auditif en France. Apports de l’enquête HID 1998-1999’, Série Etudes n°71, Paris: DREES, https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-10/dtee71.pdf. [accessed 08.12.2021].Google Scholar
Makdessi, Y. and Masson, L. (2010), ‘Établissements et services pour enfants et adolescents handicapés. Résultats de l’enquête ES 2006 et séries chronologiques 1995 à 2006’, série statistiques n°148, Paris: DREES, https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-10/dt148.pdf. [accessed 08.12.2021].Google Scholar
Makdessi, Y. and Mordier, B. (2013), ‘Établissements et services pour enfants et adolescents handicapés. Résultats de l’enquête ES 2010’, collection Statistiques n°177, Paris: DREES, https://drees-site-v2.cegedim.cloud/sites/default/files/2020-10/dt177.pdf. [accessed 08.12.2021].Google Scholar
Mladenov, T., John, O. and Cribb, A. (2015), ‘Personalisation in disability services and healthcare: A critical comparative analysis’, Critical Social Policy, 35 (3), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J. (2004), ‘Independent living and community care: a disempowering framework’, Disability & Society, 19 (5), 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, C. (2011), ‘Personalization: From Story-line to Practice’, Social Policy & Administration, 45 (1), 54–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, C. (2014), ‘Personalization: From day centres to community hubs?’, Critical Social Policy, 34 (1), 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilholm, C., Almqvist, L., Göransson, K. and Lindqvist, G. (2013), ‘Is it possible to get away from disability-based classifications in education? An empirical investigation of the Swedish system’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 15 (4), 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, M. (1990), The Politics of Disablement: A Sociological Approach, New York: St. Martin’s press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, P. B. and Kolstad, A. (2009), ‘De-institutionalisation and trans-institutionalisation - changing trends of inpatient care in Norwegian mental health institutions 1950-2007’, International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 3, Article number: 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, A. (2009), ‘Spatial Perspectives on Voluntarism in Learning Disability Services in Ireland’, Journal of Social Policy 38 (2), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, A. and Bartlett, R. (2018), ‘Self-building safe havens in a post-service landscape: how adults with learning disabilities are reclaiming the welcoming communities agenda’, Social and Cultural Geography, 19 (3), 336–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, A., Coverdale, A., Croydon, A., Hall, E., Kaley, A., Macpherson, H. and Nind, M. (2021), ‘Personalisation policy in the lives of people with learning disabilities: a call to focus on how people build their lives relationally’, Critical Social Policy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prandini, R. (2018), ‘Themed section: the person-centred turn in welfare policies: bad wine in new bottles or a true social innovation?’, International Review of Sociology, 28 (1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulstone, A. (2015), ‘Personal Independence Payments, welfare reform and the shrinking disability category’, Disability and Society, 30 (5), 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saloviita, T. (2002), ‘The closure of Nastola care home: A longitudinal study on deinstitutionalisation’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 4 (2), 138–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scourfield, P. (2005), ‘Implementing the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act: Will the Supply of Personal Assistants meet the Demand and at what Price?’, Journal of Social Policy, 34 (3), 469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tøssebro, J. (2016), ‘Scandinavian disability policy: From deinstitutionalisation to non-discrimination and beyond’, ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap, 10 (2), 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tøssebro, J., Bonfils, I., Teittinen, A., Tideman, M., Traustadóttir, R. and Vesala, H. (2012), ‘Normalization Fifty Years Beyond – Current Trends in the Nordic Countries’, Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9 (2), 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tournadre-Plancq, J. (2010), ‘L’heure du choix. Personnalisation et compétition dans l'État social britannique’, Raisons politiques, 37 (1), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winance, M. and Barral, C. (2013), ‘From “ineducability” to “rare disabilities”. Evolution and emergence of political categories involved in shaping the French medico-social sector’, ALTER - European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap, 7 (4), 244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winance, M., Ville, I. and Ravaud, J.-F. (2007), ‘Disability Policies in France: changes and tensions between the category-based, universalist and personalized approaches’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 9 (3-4), 160–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zola, I.K. (1982), Missing Pieces: A chronicle of living with a disability, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar