Transcultural health & Hodges model

Text by Larson et al. (2001) is presented below with a suggested placement of
Bradshaw's (1972) typology of social need on to the four care domains of Hodges' model:

Felt need: The needs as perceived by members of the group.	Normative need: The group fails to meet an objective, universalistic standard. Technical definitions of need such as the Australian National Mental Health Standards are examples of normative need.
Expressed need: Through their behaviour, group members have demonstrated a need, often by lengthy queues for services or failure to attend a service.	Comparative need: The group is demonstratively worse off than another group. Comparative need is usually demonstrated through routinely collected statistics, which is problematic for small ethnic groups whose identities are rarely recorded (p.336).

Bradshaw’s framework is still widely used. The important distinction is one between the ‘top-down’, professional-derived definitions of normative and comparative needs, on the one hand, and the felt and expressed needs, interpreted as the ‘bottom-up’ expression of experiences and attitudes, on the other (p.336).

See also Larson et al. discussion of 'thin' and 'thick' needs.

(The fact that this typology can be described in terms of 'top-down' - 'bottom-up' also highlights the socio-technical potential of Hodges' model.)

References:
Bradshaw, J. (1972). The concept of social need. New Society, 19(496), 640–643.
Larson, A., Frkovic, I., van Kooten-Prasad, M., Manderson, L. (2001). Mental Health Needs Assessment in Australia’s Culturally Diverse Society, Transcultural Psychiatry, 33(3), 333-347. Abstract