Conceptualising Care: A Scoping Review of Definitions and Discourses in the Care Economy

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Khalil H., Barclay K., Boak J., Blackberry I.
{"title":"Conceptualising Care: A Scoping Review of Definitions and Discourses in the Care Economy","authors":"Khalil H.,&nbsp;Barclay K.,&nbsp;Boak J.,&nbsp;Blackberry I.","doi":"10.1155/hsc/5597636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The term “care economy” is increasingly used in research, policy and public discourse, yet remains inconsistently defined.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To map how the care economy is conceptualised in recent peer-reviewed literature, identifying common definitions, recurring themes, and notable omissions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using eight databases. Articles published between January 2018 and November 2023 were screened and analysed. Excel was used for qualitative content analysis and word frequency exploration. Thematic patterns in definitions and discourses were synthesised to highlight dominant framings and gaps.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Out of 354 reviewed articles, 107 explicitly engaged with aspects of the care economy although few offered comprehensive definitions. Analysis revealed dominant themes around informal caregiving, economic burden, gendered care labour and family-based support systems. However, explicit engagement with critical perspectives—such as Indigenous, Black feminist or Global South conceptualisations was rare among the included studies. Quantitative visualisation tools (e.g., word frequency tables and clouds) illustrated prominent terminology but were interpreted alongside thematic analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This review highlights the fragmented and often exclusionary ways in which the care economy is defined in academic literature. Drawing on this mapping, it proposes an evidence-informed working definition, intended as a transparent point of departure rather than a fixed, singular definition, and argues for more inclusive and critically informed frameworks that recognise the diversity of care relationships and the sociopolitical dynamics underpinning them.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48195,"journal":{"name":"Health & Social Care in the Community","volume":"2026 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/hsc/5597636","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & Social Care in the Community","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/hsc/5597636","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The term “care economy” is increasingly used in research, policy and public discourse, yet remains inconsistently defined.

Objective

To map how the care economy is conceptualised in recent peer-reviewed literature, identifying common definitions, recurring themes, and notable omissions.

Methods

A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using eight databases. Articles published between January 2018 and November 2023 were screened and analysed. Excel was used for qualitative content analysis and word frequency exploration. Thematic patterns in definitions and discourses were synthesised to highlight dominant framings and gaps.

Results

Out of 354 reviewed articles, 107 explicitly engaged with aspects of the care economy although few offered comprehensive definitions. Analysis revealed dominant themes around informal caregiving, economic burden, gendered care labour and family-based support systems. However, explicit engagement with critical perspectives—such as Indigenous, Black feminist or Global South conceptualisations was rare among the included studies. Quantitative visualisation tools (e.g., word frequency tables and clouds) illustrated prominent terminology but were interpreted alongside thematic analysis.

Conclusion

This review highlights the fragmented and often exclusionary ways in which the care economy is defined in academic literature. Drawing on this mapping, it proposes an evidence-informed working definition, intended as a transparent point of departure rather than a fixed, singular definition, and argues for more inclusive and critically informed frameworks that recognise the diversity of care relationships and the sociopolitical dynamics underpinning them.

概念化护理:护理经济中定义和话语的范围审查
“护理经济”一词越来越多地用于研究、政策和公共话语中,但其定义仍不一致。目的了解在最近的同行评议文献中,护理经济是如何被概念化的,确定常见的定义、反复出现的主题和值得注意的遗漏。方法对8个数据库的同行评议文献进行范围综述。对2018年1月至2023年11月期间发表的文章进行了筛选和分析。使用Excel进行定性内容分析和词频探索。定义和话语中的主位模式被综合起来,以突出占主导地位的框架和差距。结果:在354篇综述文章中,107篇明确涉及护理经济的各个方面,尽管很少有文章提供全面的定义。分析揭示了围绕非正式护理、经济负担、性别护理劳动和基于家庭的支持系统的主要主题。然而,在纳入的研究中,明确参与批判性观点-例如土著,黑人女权主义者或全球南方概念化-是罕见的。定量可视化工具(例如,词频表和云)说明了突出的术语,但与专题分析一起解释。本综述强调了在学术文献中对护理经济的定义是碎片化的,往往是排他性的。在此基础上,它提出了一个循证工作定义,旨在作为一个透明的出发点,而不是一个固定的、单一的定义,并主张建立更具包容性和批判性的信息框架,认识到护理关系的多样性以及支撑这些关系的社会政治动态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
423
期刊介绍: Health and Social Care in the community is an essential journal for anyone involved in nursing, social work, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, general practice, health psychology, health economy, primary health care and the promotion of health. It is an international peer-reviewed journal supporting interdisciplinary collaboration on policy and practice within health and social care in the community. The journal publishes: - Original research papers in all areas of health and social care - Topical health and social care review articles - Policy and practice evaluations - Book reviews - Special issues
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书