Gabriela Uribe, Ferdinand Mukumbang, Corey Moore, Tabitha Jones, Susan Woolfenden, Katarina Ostojic, Paul Haber, John Eastwood, James Gillespie and Carmen Huckel Schneider
Integrated health and social care initiatives are increasing and health and social care systems are aiming to improve health and social outcomes in disadvantaged groups. There is…
Abstract
Purpose
Integrated health and social care initiatives are increasing and health and social care systems are aiming to improve health and social outcomes in disadvantaged groups. There is a global dialogue surrounding improving services by shifting to an integrated health and social care approach. There is consensus of what is “health care”; however, the “social care” definition remains less explored. The authors describe the state of “social care” within the current integrated care literature and identify the depth of integration in current health and social care initiatives.
Design/methodology/approach
A narrative literature review, searching Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases and grey literature (from 2016 to 2021), employing a search strategy, was conducted.
Findings
In total. 276 studies were eligible for full-text review, and 33 studies were included and categorised in types: “social care as community outreach dialogues”, “social care as addressing an ageing population”, “social care as targeting multimorbidity and corresponding social risks factors” and “social care as initiatives addressing the fragmentation of services”. Most initiatives were implemented in the United Kingdom. In total, 21 studies reported expanding integrated governance and partnerships; 27 studies reported having health and social care staff with clear integrated governance; 17 had dedicated funding and 11 used data-sharing and the integration of systems’ records.
Originality/value
The authors' demonstrate that social care approaches are expanding beyond the elderly, and these models have been used to respond to multimorbidity [including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)], targeting priority groups and individuals with complex presentations.
Details
Keywords
There has been significant growth in entrepreneurship research over the past several decades. Yet with all of the knowledge gained and presumably improved training of would-be…
Abstract
Purpose
There has been significant growth in entrepreneurship research over the past several decades. Yet with all of the knowledge gained and presumably improved training of would-be entrepreneurs, firm failure rates remain persistently high. It is argued here that the historical and continued research focus on successful entrepreneurs has limited the field. Entrepreneurs are often considered to possess uniquely positive capabilities relative to the general population; this paper explores the possibility that the majority of entrepreneurs suffer from overconfidence and that this leads most entrepreneurs to make “bad bets” that result in underperformance and firm failure.
Design/methodology/approach
In this paper, a qualitative review of the literature was performed.
Findings
Based on the literature review, three formal propositions are developed. The first two suggest that the majority of entrepreneurs are overconfident in their personal capabilities and the prospects for their new ventures. It is then proposed that this overconfidence leads to errors in judgment that results in financial underperformance and failure found among most new ventures.
Originality/value
This paper makes an important contribution to the entrepreneurship literature by arguing that overconfidence negatively impacts pre-founding decision-making such that entrepreneurs pursue flawed opportunities. Studying the issues raised in this paper may spur new lines of research and knowledge that lead to better entrepreneurial outcomes.
Details
Keywords
Dr Peter Stokes, Dr Neil Moore, Dr Simon Brooks and Paul Caulfield and Jessica Wells