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.

Integration of global SNP-based mapping and expression arrays reveals key regions, mechanisms, and genes important in the pathogenesis of multiple myeloma.

Multiple myeloma is characterized by genomic alterations frequently involving gains and losses of chromosomes. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based mapping arrays allow the identification of copy number changes at the sub-megabase level and the identification of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) due to monosomy and uniparental disomy (UPD). We have found that SNP-based mapping array data and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) copy number data correlated well, making the technique robust as a tool to investigate myeloma genomics. The most frequently identified alterations are located at 1p, 1q, 6q, 8p, 13, and 16q. LOH is found in these large regions and also in smaller regions throughout the genome with a median size of 1 Mb. We have identified that UPD is prevalent in myeloma and occurs through a number of mechanisms including mitotic nondisjunction and mitotic recombination. For the first time in myeloma, integration of mapping and expression data has allowed us to reduce the complexity of standard gene expression data and identify candidate genes important in both the transition from normal to monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS) to myeloma and in different subgroups within myeloma. We have documented these genes, providing a focus for further studies to identify and characterize those that are key in the pathogenesis of myeloma.