Consucrats Have Agency: What Next for the Profecrat? Comment on “The Rise of the Consucrat”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

Abstract

The trend in ensuring adequate consumer representation across diverse activities and sectors, not least in healthcare, has been speedily implemented, sometimes at the expense of strategy. This commentary explores the concept of the consucrat as a consumer representative, presented by de Leeuw, which raised important questions regarding the way in which individuals and health services interact and collaborate. Adopting a complex services marketing lens, the position of the consucrat is discussed in relation to agency underpinning three tensions identified by de Leeuw: designation; professionalization, and; representation. For equality, professional service providers are referred to as ‘profecrats.’ Supporting de Leeuw, challenges are made to the underlying assumptions implicit in terms used around representation, the perspective that it is the consucrat only who needs to adapt, and the discourse around the competence of the consucrat. We should not be too cautious in our approach to consumer representation. Consucrats have agency – what next for the profecrat?

Keywords

References

  1. de Leeuw E. The Rise of the Consucrat. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(4):176-180. doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2020.36
  2. Wright B. Voices of the vulnerable: community health centres and the promise and peril of consumer governance. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(1):57-71. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.881537
  3. Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Edwards A, et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme. BMJ. 2017;357:j1744. doi:10.1136/bmj.j1744
  4. Keeling DI, Laing A, de Ruyter K. Evolving roles and structures of triadic engagement in healthcare. J Serv Manag. 2018;29(3):352-377. doi:10.1108/josm-09-2016-0249
  5. Keeling DI, de Ruyter K, Mousavi S, Laing A. Technology push without a patient pull: examining digital unengagement (DU) with online health services. Eur J Mark. 2019;53(9):1701-1732. doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0692
  6. Best B, Moffett S, McAdam R. Stakeholder salience in public sector value co-creation. Public Manag Rev. 2019;21(11):1707-1732. doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1619809
  7. Vargo SL, Akaka MA, Vaughan CM. Conceptualizing value: a service-ecosystem view. J Creat Value. 2017;3(2):117-124. doi:10.1177/2394964317732861
  8. Keeling DI, Laing A, Newholm T. Health communities as permissible space: supporting negotiation to balance asymmetries. Psychol Mark. 2015;32(3):303-318. doi:10.1002/mar.20781
  9. Showell C, Turner P. Personal health records are designed for people like us. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:1037.
  10. Dietrich T, Trischler J, Schuster L, Rundle-Thiele S. Co-designing services with vulnerable consumers. J Serv Theory Pract. 2017;27(3):663-688. doi:10.1108/jstp-02-2016-0036
  11. Keeling DI, Rigby M, de Ruyter K, Bove LL, Stern PJ. Marketing as an integrator in integrated care. Eur J Mark. 2018;52(11):2194-2206. doi:10.1108/ejm-11-2018-899
  12. Novelli WD, Halvorson GC, Santa J. Recognizing an opinion: findings from the IOM evidence communication innovation collaborative. JAMA. 2012;308(15):1531-1532. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.13369
  13. Keeling DI, Keeling K, de Ruyter K, Laing A. How value co-creation and co-destruction unfolds: a longitudinal perspective on dialogic engagement in health services interactions. J Acad Mark Sci. 2021;49(2):236-257. doi:10.1007/s11747-020-00737-z
  14. Beirão G, Patrício L, Fisk RP. Value cocreation in service ecosystems: investigating health care at the micro, meso and macro levels. J Serv Manag. 2017;28(2):227-249. doi:10.1108/josm-11-2015-0357
  15. Kent ML, Taylor M. Understanding the rhetoric of dialogue and the dialogue of rhetoric. In: Oyvind I, Heath RL, eds. The Handbook of Organizational Rhetoric and Communication. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2018:315-327.
  16. Cruz AG, Snuggs E, Tsarenko Y. A paradoxical dynamic in a service labyrinth: insights from HIV care. Eur J Mark. 2018;52(11):2252-2265. doi:10.1108/ejm-12-2016-0822
  17. Wolff JL, Clayman ML, Rabins P, Cook MA, Roter DL. An exploration of patient and family engagement in routine primary care visits. Health Expect. 2015;18(2):188-198. doi:10.1111/hex.12019
  18. Botin L, Nøhr C. Nursing telehealth, caring from a distance. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;225:188-192.
  19. Laing A, Keeling D, Newholm T. Virtual communities come of age: parallel service, value, and propositions offered in communal online space. J Mark Manag. 2011;27(3-4):291-315. doi:10.1080/0267257x.2011.545679
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 10, Issue 8
August 2021
Pages 507-510

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 24 September 2020
  • Revise Date: 08 April 2021
  • Accept Date: 12 April 2021
  • First Publish Date: 01 May 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics