Search results

Defining needs is difficult due to the inherent complexity of the concept of 'need', so it is not surprising that numerous definitions have been proposed. 'Health' consists of a wide range of characteristics so 'health needs' ought to include personal and social care, health care, accommodation, finance, education, employment and leisure, transport and access.Target-driven standards in areas of health care with a high political profile appear to be replacing the concept of universal provision and clinical need; this major change in clinical care warrants a re-evaluation of health care outcomes. Identifying who might benefit from this new approach to health care is equally important if scarce resources are to be fully and appropriately utilised. If the goal of care is 'optimal health', the key marker of success ought to be to ascertain individual patients' health care needs (HCN) and tailor services accordingly. Wide variation in the description of 'needs' directly affects policies and services intended to meet a population's health care needs. Consequently, the definition of 'needs' has important implications for healthcare provision- the more constrained the definition, the less healthcare will be made available and vice versa. This paper describes some common definitions of needs and discusses their respective benefits and disadvantages in terms of health care provision and their potential impact on health policy

The concept of needs works to sort out social policies. Yet the idea is in disrepute with many thinkers who, led by economists, accuse it of being too fluid, or too narrow, or of serving no purpose that the concept of preferences does not serve better. David Braybrooke refutes these charges by providing a model of how the concept of needs works when it is working well. Originally published in 1987. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These

This paper reformulates the question of 'sociology, who needs it' in two ways, The first question we address is that of the reason why the educational system itself did not come to sociology for help in their long quest for a clear-cut content of the subject. The second question is why sociology did not adopt the orphaned subject of social studies back in 1960. The answer to the first question lies in the vulnerability of a subject that is dependent for its continued existence on the political leanings of the day. This led to a new goal for the subject almost every decade: from social education in the sixties and social and political education in the seventies, to a focus on citizenship education in the nineties. Although the objective was renamed on several occasions, the prescriptive viewpoint is recognizable in each. This perspective is difficult to reconcile with a social science content. The answer to the second questions points towards Dutch social scientists with a strong focus on academic sociology and not for critical, policy or public sociology. This choice was also made in order to win the competition with psychologists and for the discipline to get rid of the poor image it had acquired in the 1960s. The new subject social sciences, with a strong focus on science made it possible for sociology to become the pillar of this new subject.