Within 18 months of its second consecutive general election (March 2018) as Italy's largest party, the valence populist 5-Star Movement (M5S) had dropped to polling 4th, halving its 30% + vote-share, behind parties of both the right and the left. In those 18-months, the party participated in two governments: one of the right and one of the centre-left. Two broad explanations for such decline are presented here: party credibility loss related to its (non)-ideological placement and penalties associated with incumbency. The former is predicted to lead those who initially supported the party to disengage from party preferences while the later is predicted to have respondents desert their preference for M5S to other parties. Using Italian panel survey data on partisan representation from March 2018 through September 2020, this manuscript identifies the opinions of those who those who deserted the party, those who disengaged from party preferences, and those who remained loyal to M5S. Descriptive analysis will first call attention to the differences between loyalists, deserters, the disengaged, and survey respondents more broadly. Multivariate analysis suggests the role of incumbency-based factors as an explanation for a decline in party support. The ideological position of the party (or being beyond left-and-right) had only a minor role. A discussion then focuses on the results of populists in power and the role of ideology in valence populism. Without an ideological core, once in power, voters punish (valence) populist party as they would any other, holding them to account for leadership and government performance.

This article analyses what makes political candidates run a party‐focused or personalised election campaign. Prior work shows that candidates face incentives from voters and the media to personalise their campaign rhetoric and promises at the expense of party policy. This has raised concerns about the capacity of parties to govern effectively and voters’ ability to hold individual politicians accountable. This article builds on the literature on party organisation and considers the possible constraints candidates face from their party in personalising their election campaigns. Specifically, it is argued that party control over the candidate nomination process and campaign financing constrains most political candidates in following electoral incentives for campaign personalisation. Using candidate survey data from the 2009 EP election campaign in 27 countries, the article shows how candidates from parties in which party officials exerted greater control over the nomination process and campaign finances were less likely to engage in personalised campaigning at the expense of the party programme. The findings imply that most parties, as central gatekeepers and resource suppliers, hold important control mechanisms for countering the electoral pressure for personalisation and advance our understanding of the incentives and constraints candidates face when communicating with voters. The article discusses how recent democratic reforms, paradoxically, might induce candidate personalisation with potential negative democratic consequences.

Cancer-related fatigue is a common problem among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors even after completion of treatment. In a randomised trial, we assessed the effect of a person-centred lifestyle programme on cancer-related fatigue among CRC survivors who completed treatment. Survivors who completed treatment at least 6 months but no longer than 5 years ago and who were experiencing cancer-related fatigue were randomised to intervention or control group. The intervention group worked with a lifestyle coach for 6 months during twelve sessions to stepwise increase adherence to the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research cancer prevention guidelines on healthy diet and physical activity. The control group did not receive lifestyle coaching. Changes in cancer-related fatigue from baseline to 6 months were assessed with the FACIT (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) – Fatigue Scale. As a secondary outcome, we assessed changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Higher scores indicate less fatigue and better HRQoL. Eighty participants were randomised to the intervention group; eighty-one to the control group. Baseline characteristics were similar: mean age 64·1 (sd 10·9) years; 55·3 % were women; and 72 % had colon cancer. There were favourable changes in dietary behaviours and physical activity in the intervention group; the control group did not show changes to the same extent. The programme did not result in statistically significant differential changes over time between intervention and control group in cancer-related fatigue (0·8; 95 % CI −1·6, 3·2) or HRQoL (1·3; 95 % CI −2·2, 4·8). A person-centred lifestyle programme improved the lifestyle of CRC survivors, but the programme was not effective in reducing cancer-related fatigue or in improving HRQoL.

This study examines the ramifications engendered by the personalisation welfare initiative, denominated as ‘Individualised Budgeting’, upon the welfare service framework in Israel. Adopting a supply-side perspective, the study employed qualitative, in-depth interviews with service providers to scrutinise potential successes and failures in service systems. The study’s methodology employed a multi-criteria policy analysis based upon the analytical theoretical framework of Gilbert and Terrell’s welfare service delivery system analysis. Results revealed that while service integration and systematic function distribution align well with the programme, accessibility and accountability only partially fit, suggesting a need for improved regulatory frameworks. New criteria, including economic viability for private suppliers and investment in innovative services, also emerged. Addressing these market inadequacies requires State investment in technological innovations to ensure an effective service delivery system.

Work-related conditionality policy in the UK is built around the problematic assumption that people should commit to ‘full-time’ work and job search efforts as a condition of receiving benefits. This is potentially in conflict with the idea that what is required of people should be tailored to their circumstances in some way – ‘personalised conditionality’ – and implies a failure to recognise that conditionality is being applied to a diverse group of people and in a context where the paid work that is available is often temporary and insecure. Drawing on thirty-three qualitative interviews with people subject to intensive work-related conditionality whilst receiving Universal Credit or Jobseeker’s Allowance in Manchester, the paper explores the work-related time demands that people were facing and argues that these provide a lens for examining the rigidities and contradictions of conditionality policy. The findings indicate that expectations are often set in relation to an ideal of full-time hours and in a highly asymmetric context that is far from conducive to being able to negotiate a reasonable set of work-related expectations. Work search requirements affect people differently depending on their personal circumstances and demand-side factors, and can act to weaken the position of people entering, or already in, work.

This article explores the experiences of keyworkers within a third-sector employability programme targeted at people furthest from work. Using semi-structured qualitative interviews, the study investigated keyworker perspectives on effective elements of programme design, and what made the critical difference for those who did move into employment. Echoing previous research, findings confirmed the value of a holistic and personalised approach founded upon a consistent and long-term relationship of trust and support, through which programme participants developed the confidence and self-belief that was critical to progression towards employment. However, critical attention to the keyworker perspective offers novel insights, bringing to light challenges in defining role parameters and maintaining personal-professional boundaries in the interests of keyworkers and programme participants. We contribute to the body of research on employability practitioner perspectives, revealing that the strengths of person-centred support may simultaneously present tensions and wellbeing risks, where role parameters are very broadly defined.

This article seeks to understand the challenges of combining the distinct aims of personalisation and integration in adult social care. Addressing the local context of service delivery in England through interviews with key stakeholders, we identify how personalisation and integration activities require different, and potentially conflicting, approaches. We observe direct tensions when structural integration with health systems distracts focus from achieving personalised delivery of care or where a focus on clinical outcomes takes precedence over broader wellbeing aspirations. Integration can entail the prioritisation of health over social care and a population rather than personal orientation. We suggest that personalisation and integration are in ‘policy conflict’ (Weible and Heikkila, 2017) and that policy-makers need to acknowledge and address this rather than promise the ‘best of both worlds’.

This article explores the accountability experiences and orientations of frontline workers implementing personalised activation services in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). The study draws on observations and interviews (2021), with three teams of employment specialists using Supported Employment as an approach to personalised service provision, in a national programme called Extended Follow-up. Adopting the theoretical lens of accountability as behaviours of account giving, three strategies on how to adopt the accountability regime at the frontline are highlighted: (i) reporting, where one team complied with accountability requirements as the perceived best practices for achieving success in work inclusion; (ii) mitigating, where accountability requirements were fulfilled but combined with attention to how to best meet jobseekers’ needs; and (iii) reframing, where accountability requirements were challenged and redefined. The study highlights how accountability requirements may be interpreted variably, promoting personalised service innovation on the one hand or stagnation on the other.

This article reviews the design and delivery features of individualised budgets for disabled and older adults to understand the mechanisms for disaggregation and collaboration in the way support is organised and delivered. Individualised funding is often assumed to be a fragmenting force, breaking down mass provision into personalised and tailored support and stimulating diverse provider markets. However, disability campaigners and policy makers are keen that it also be an integrative force, to stimulate collaboration such that a person receives a ‘seamless’ service. The article brings out these tensions within the individualisation of funding and support for older and disabled people in the United Kingdom and Australia, and considers whether there is scope for reconciling these dual forces.

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.