International Journal for Equity in Health (Nov 2019)

Personalisation schemes in social care and inequality: review of the evidence and early theorising

  • Gemma Carey,
  • Brad Crammond,
  • Eleanor Malbon

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1075-2
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Personalisation is a growing international policy paradigm that aims to create both improved outcomes for individuals, and reduce fiscal pressures on government, by giving greater choice and control to citizens accessing social services. In personalisation schemes, individuals purchase services from a ‘service market’ using individual budgets or vouchers given to them by governments. Personalisation schemes have grown in areas such as disability and aged care across Europe, the UK and Australia. There is a wealth of evidence in public health and health care that demonstrates that practically all forms of social services, programs and interventions produce unequal benefit depending on socio-economic position. Research has found that skills required to successfully negotiate service systems leads to disproportionate benefit to the ‘middle class. With an unprecedented emphasis on individual skills, personalisation has even greater potential to widen and entrench social inequalities. Despite the increase in numbers of people now accessing services through such schemes, there has been no examination of how different social groups benefit from these schemes, how this widens and entrenches social inequities, and – in turn – what can be done to mitigate this. Methods This article presents a meta-review of the evidence on personalisation and inequality. A qualitative meta-analysis was undertaking of existing research into personalisation schemes in social services to identify whether and how such schemes are impacting different socio-economic groups. Results No research was identified which seeks to understand the impact of personalisation schemes on inequality. However, a number of ‘proxies’ for social class were identified, such as education, income, and employment, which had a bearing on outcome. We provide a theoretical framework for understanding why this is occurring, using concepts drawn from Bourdieu. Conclusion Personalisation schemes are likely to be entrenching, and potentially expanding, social inequalities. More attention needs to be given to this aspect of personal budgets by policymakers and researchers.

Keywords