Responsibility and Well-Being: Resource Integration Under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift of functions and risks from providers and producers to consumers, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). As responsibilization is often considered synonymous with consumer agency and well-being, the authors take a transformative service research perspective and draw on resource integration literature to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. The authors focus on expert services, for which responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, they develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider, and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration, and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation, and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. The findings have important implications for health care providers, public and institutional policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

Responsibility and Well-being: Resource Integration under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift in functions and risks from providers and producers to the consumer, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). Responsibilization is often presented as synonymous with consumer agency and well-being. We take a transformative service research perspective and utilize the resource integration framework to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. We focus on expert services, where responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, we develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. Our findings have important implications for health care providers, public policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

Increasing Ambient Temperature Reduces Emotional Well-Being

This study examines the impact of ambient temperature on emotional well-being in the U.S. population aged 18+. The U.S. is an interesting test case because of its resources, technology and variation in climate across different areas, which also allows us to examine whether adaptation to different climates could weaken or even eliminate the impact of heat on well-being. Using survey responses from 1.9 million Americans over the period from 2008 to 2013, we estimate the effect of temperature on well-being from exogenous day-to-day temperature variation within respondents’ area of residence and test whether this effect varies across areas with different climates. We find that increasing temperatures significantly reduce well-being. Compared to average daily temperatures in the 50–60 °F (10–16 °C) range, temperatures above 70 °F (21 °C) reduce positive emotions (e.g. joy, happiness), increase negative emotions (e.g. stress, anger), and increase fatigue (feeling tired, low energy). These effects are particularly strong among less educated and older Americans. However, there is no consistent evidence that heat effects on well-being differ across areas with mild and hot summers, suggesting limited variation in heat adaptation.

Reflexology for symptom relief in patients with cancer

Complementary therapies are increasingly being used in hospices and hospitals alongside orthodox treatments in an attempt to improve patients' emotional, spiritual, psychological, and physical well-being. An average of 31% of UK patients with cancer use some form of complementary therapy. Many UK cancer centers, out-patient units, and hospices are providing complementary services. There is strong anecdotal evidence that complementary therapies assist in the palliation of physical and psychological symptoms. This systematic review examines the research evidence base for the effectiveness of reflexology in cancer care. The study reports the results of a systematic review following the Cochrane principles of systematic reviewing. No meta-analysis was possible. Studies were retrieved from a comprehensive search of electronic databases from their start dates. An initial search was carried out in 2003 and updated in 2005 to 2006. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time-series studies. Participants were adults with a diagnosis of cancer, receiving care in any healthcare setting. Interventions were limited to reflexology carried out by a qualified therapist as distinguished from another healthcare professional carrying out a reflexology intervention. Outcome measures were patient-reported levels of physical and psychological indices of symptom distress and quality of life (measured using validated assessment tools). Copyright © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Guidelines for the psychosocial and bereavement support of family caregivers of palliative care patients

Support for family caregivers, including bereavement follow-up, is a core function of palliative care. Many caregivers acknowledge positive aspects associated with the role; however a considerable proportion will experience poor psychological, social, financial, spiritual, and physical well-being and some will suffer from complicated grief. Many family caregivers have unmet needs and would like more information, preparation, and support to assist them in the caregiving role. There is a shortage of evidence-based strategies to guide health professionals in providing optimal support while the caregiver is providing care and after the patient's death.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment (Review)

Background

It is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis.
Objectives

To evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments).
Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015.
Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied.
Data collection and analysis

Author pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes.
Main results

Five RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I2= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I2 = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I2 = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I2 = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear.
Authors' conclusions

Overall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.