National evaluation of NHS genetics service investments: emerging issues from the cancer genetics pilots

In seeking to fulfil the ambition of the 2003 genetics white paper, Our Inheritance, Our Future, to ‘mainstream’ genetic knowledge and practices, the Department of Health provided start-up funding for pilot services in various clinical areas, including seven cancer genetics projects. To help to understand the challenges encountered by such an attempt at reconfiguring the organization and delivery of services in this field, a programme-level evaluation of the genetics projects was commissioned to consider the organizational issues faced. Using a qualitative approach, this research has involved comparative case-study work in 11 of the pilot sites, including four of the seven cancer genetics pilots. In this paper, the researchers present early findings from their work, focusing in particular on the cancer genetics pilots. They consider some of the factors that have influenced how the pilots have sought to address pre-existing sector, organizational and professional boundaries to these new ways of working. The article examines the relationship between these factors and the extent to which pilots have succeeded in setting up boundary-spanning services, dealing with human-resource issues and creating sustainable, ‘mainstreamed’ provision which attracts ongoing funding in a volatile NHS commissioning environment where funding priorities do not always favour preventive, risk-assessment services.

Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-care management

Public participation in health-service management is an increasingly prominent policy internationally. Frequently, though, academic studies have found it marginalized by health professionals who, keen to retain control over decision-making, undermine the legitimacy of involved members of the public, in particular by questioning their representativeness. This paper examines this negotiation of representative legitimacy between staff and involved users by drawing on a qualitative study of service-user involvement in pilot cancer-genetics services recently introduced in England, using interviews, participant observation and documentary analysis. In contrast to the findings of much of the literature, health professionals identified some degree of representative legitimacy in the contributions made by users. However, the ways in which staff and users constructed representativeness diverged significantly. Where staff valued the identities of users as biomedical and lay subjects, users themselves described the legitimacy of their contribution in more expansive terms of knowledge and citizenship. My analysis seeks to show how disputes over representativeness relate not just to a struggle for power according to contrasting group interests, but also to a substantive divergence in understanding of the nature of representativeness in the context of state-orchestrated efforts to increase public participation. This divergence might suggest problems with the enactment of such aspirations in practice; alternatively, however, contestation of representative legitimacy might be understood as reflecting ambiguities in policy-level objectives for participation, which secure implementation by accommodating the divergent constructions of those charged with putting initiatives into practice.