Across the public sector there is concern that service uptake is inequitably distributed by socioeconomic circumstances and that public provision exacerbates the existence of inequalities either because services are not allocated by need or because of differential patterns of uptake between the most and least affluent groups. A concept that offers potential to understand access and utilization is 'candidacy' which has been used to explain access to, and utilization of, healthcare. The concept suggests that an individual's identification of his or her 'candidacy' for health services is structurally, culturally, organizationally and professionally constructed, and helps to explain why those in deprived circumstances make less use of services than the more affluent. In this article we assess the fit of candidacy to other public services using a Critical Interpretive Synthesis of three case studies literatures relating to: domestic abuse, higher education and environmental services. We find high levels of congruence between 'candidacy' and the sampled literatures on access/ utilization of services. We find, however, that the concept needs to be refined. In particular, we distinguish between micro, meso and macro factors that play into the identification, sustaining and resolution of candidacy, and demonstrate the plural nature of candidacies. We argue that this refined model of candidacy should be tested empirically beyond and within health. More specifically, in the current economic context, we suggest that it becomes imperative to better understand how access to public services is influenced by multiple factors including changing discourses of deservedness and fairness, and by stringent reductions in the public purse. levels of service uptake are inequitably distributed by socio-economic circumstances -the 'sharp elbowed middle classes' (or at least the relatively more advantaged) appear able to benefit disproportionately from provision across a range of public services including health, education, housing, leisure and cultural services (Le Grand 1982;Gal 1998). Indeed, across a range of services there is evidence that universal public provision, which often paradoxically operates with explicit goals to reduce inequalities, can exacerbate the existence and experience of such inequalities through a range of implicit mechanisms that advantage the most privileged. These mechanisms include those associated with both supply and demand factors.Supply factors include the extent to which services are sufficiently resourced to target need, the degree to which systems work to overcome barriers of accessibility and the ways in which individual workers practice inclusiveness (Meier and Stewart 1991;Gal 1998;Rummery and Glendinning 2000;Priestley et al. 2010). On the demand side, explanations focus on the different perceived relevance of services and differential capacity of the wealthiest and poorest groups in society to make the best use of services. This in turn can lead to a stigmatizing discourse about those who do not eng...

How and when we use health services or healthcare provision has dominated exploration of and debates around healthcare access. Levels of utilisation are assumed as a proxy for access. Yet, focusing on utilisation conceals an important aspect of the access conundrum: the relationships that patients and potential patients have with the healthcare system and the professionals within those systems. Candidacy has been proposed as an antidote to traditional utilisation models. The Candidacy construct offers the ability to include patient-professional aspects alongside utilisation and thus promotes a deeper understanding of access. Originally applied to healthcare access for vulnerable populations, additional socio-demographic factors, including age and ethnicity, have also been shown to influence the Candidacy process. Here we propose a further extension of the Candidacy construct and illustrate the importance of illness identities when accessing healthcare.Drawing on a secondary data analysis of three data sets of qualitative interviews from colorectal cancer and heart failure patients we found that though similar access issues are apparent prediagnosis, diagnosis marks a critical juncture in the experience of access. Cancer patients describe a 2 person-centred responsive healthcare system where their patienthood requires only modest assertion. Cancer speaks for itself. In marked contrast heart failure patients, describe struggling within a seemingly impermeable system to understand their illness, its implications and their own legitimacy as patients. Our work highlights the pressing need for healthcare professionals, systems and policies to promote a person centred approach, which is responsive and timely, regardless of illness category. To achieve this, attitudes regarding the importance or priority afforded to different categories of illness need to be tackled as they directly influence ideas of Candidacy and consequently access and experiences of care.

We conducted a qualitative longitudinal study to explore how adult residents of disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods (Glasgow, UK) experienced neighbourhood demolition and relocation. Data from 23 households was collected in 2011 and 2012. Some participants described moves to new or improved homes in different neighbourhoods as beneficial to their and their families’ wellbeing. Others suggested that longstanding illnesses and problems with the new home and/or neighbourhood led to more negative experiences. Individual-level contextual differences, home and neighbourhood-level factors and variations in intervention implementation influence the experiences of residents involved in relocation programmes.

Screening is a well-established tool to advance earlier cancer diagnosis. We used Davison's concept of 'candidacy' to explore how individuals draw on collectively constructed images of 'typical' colorectal cancer (CRC) sufferers, or 'candidates', in order to evaluate their own risk and to ascertain the impact of candidacy on screening participation in CRC. We interviewed 61 individuals who were invited to participate in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme. Of these, 37 were screeners (17 men and 20 women) and 24 non-screeners (13 men and 11 women). To analyse these data we used a coding frame that drew on: symptoms, risk factors, and retrospective and prospective candidacy. Few participants could identify a definite bowel cancer candidate and notions of candidacy were largely predicated on luck in the sense that anyone could be a candidate for CRC and there was little evidence to support a linear relationship between feelings of risk and screening decisions. Often participants described screening as part of a wider portfolio of being healthy and referred to feeling obliged to look after themselves. Our study suggests that rather than candidates for bowel cancer, screeners viewed themselves as candidates for screening by which screening decisions pointed towards the acceptance and normalisation of the rhetoric of personal responsibility for health. These findings have related theoretical and practical implications; the moral structure that underpins the new public health can be witnessed practically in the narratives by which those who see themselves as candidates for screening embrace wider positive health practices.

Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), used nationally and internationally to explore implementation within health services research, is used for the first time within policing to understand profound policy implementation failure and to generate broader discussion of policy implementation theory. The policy in question (Police to Primary Care [P2PC]) was an intervention designed to notify GPs when women are assessed by police as at high risk of future domestic abuse. Designed to improve interagency communication, it took place amidst radical organisational change. Using qualitative interviews with domestic abuse specialist and frontline officers, this paper addresses how NPT helps to explain the (non)implementation of P2PC, how such an analysis differs from other policy implementation approaches, and what this means for our understandings of policy implementation more broadly. NPT proved useful in understanding mechanisms leading to (non)implementation of the intervention: fuzzy alignment with existing practice, faulty communication of purpose, and inattention to discretionary implementation spaces. It helped us understand why the intervention came to be invisible. Dwarfed by its organisational context, made institutionally hard to read by a lack of formal protocols, and given restricted view to police officers, it was compromised by a failure to instigate systems of organisational learning. More broadly, NPT helped reveal practices intersecting topdown and bottom-up implementation theory. The paper concludes by asking how NPT and theories of street-level bureaucracy might be better used in tandem and, particularly, how this might help explorations of policy implementation where human actors are joined by technological actors in interpreting and making policy in vivo.