The article relies on qualitative research methods to investigate how by the means of institutional work healthcare professionals introduce patient-centered care in Russian maternity hospitals. Post-socialist healthcare is commonly viewed in academic literature as a highly centralized and state-controlled domain, where autonomy and agency of both patients and practitioners are significantly restricted. Our research contributes empirically to scholarly debate by questioning this assumption and by providing shreds of evidence of healthcare professionals’ ground-level initiatives. On the conceptual level, we add to the discussion about the dynamic interrelation between institutional change, clients’ demands, and the transformation of professionals’ position. We argue that neoliberal reforms in Russian healthcare have created institutional uncertainty which is strategically used by professionals to expand the scope of their workplace autonomy and to develop patient-centeredness as an institutional innovation. However, our research shows that the resulting model of patient-centeredness contributes to empowering healthcare practitioners, rather than to increasing patients’ participation in decision-making.

During the last decade Russian politics have aimed at stimulating the birth rate, most famously by the maternity capital program. This article provides results from the first extensive study of citizen use and attitudes to this benefit and concludes that Russian women and families harbor a deep distrust of the program and Russian social policy, as it sends contradictory messages combining paternalistic and liberal trends. Many eligible mothers have not activated their capital due to various bureaucratic obstacles they encounter. Contrary to the expectations of economists and sociologists, the results indicate that middle-class families have more resources to use their capital.

No abstract

Sociological scholars of healthcare professions are becoming increasingly aware of the organisational dimension of professionalism, including how professionals as institutional actors are exposed to and influence organisational transformation. By tracing the ground‐level professional efforts of Russian doulas—a caring profession that has been plunged into a reforming health system—in this article I explore how meaning‐making activities and professionals' emotional labour build into and advance institutional changes in post‐socialist maternity care. Drawing on qualitative research materials, I define three ways through which doulas' institutional efforts engage with emotions in clinical settings: (1) redefining emotional labour as a compound of maternity care; (2) grounding emotional labour in the context of reforming institutions; (3) using emotional labour to bridge discrepancies within organisational arrangements in healthcare. My research findings provide new insights into how marketisation influences professional care, as well as about caring professionalism in post‐socialist maternity care. Attention to doulas' professional efforts allows for the affective transformation and inequality in the context of healthcare reforms to be analytically grasped. In particular, I trace how doulas' institutional agency embodied in emotional labour constructs the neo‐liberal patient's identity.

In the contemporary world pharmaceuticals have become a go-to answer to a growing number of questions. This process of pharmaceuticalization gives rise to a concern with the increasing influence of the pharmaceutical industry on physicians’ decision-making. Critics suggest that companies’ for-profit-interests might compromise the integrity of medical practice. This article employs qualitative research methodology to explore how Russian physicians deal with the industry’s efforts to expand and shape the use of pharmaceuticals. By bridging perspectives of social studies of science and sociology of professions, we offer a contextualized account of physicians’ daily practices and interpretations related to pharmaceuticalization. The findings question conventional assumptions of physician-industry relations and allow to delineate a new form of medical professionalism that emerges in the context of pharmaceuticalization and cannot be reduced to either “resisting” industry marketing activities or “giving in” to them and thus corrupting biomedical expertise. Instead, the ways in which physicians navigate abundant sources of knowledge and use industry resources to overcome constraints of their organizational environment attest to mundane forms of agency exercised by physicians in their relations with industry.