Bradshaw’s Taxonomy
Bradshaw’s Taxonomy of Social Need was initially developed in relation to the
needs of older people, although its application has since broadened to
encompass healthcare and social care more widely. The taxonomy provides a
framework for understanding different types of need and highlights that need is
not a singular or universally agreed-upon concept. Bradshaw identified four key
types of need: normative, felt, expressed, and comparative.
Normative need refers to needs defined by experts or professionals, typically
based on societal norms or standards of wellbeing. This reflects the professional
judgement of what is considered necessary for an individual to function
adequately within society. Felt need, by contrast, is subjective and arises from
the individual’s own perception of their needs, often described as desires or
wants rather than objectively defined requirements. Expressed need, sometimes
called demand, occurs when a felt need is acted upon, for example when a
person seeks assistance, services, or resources to meet their perceived need.
Finally, comparative need involves understanding needs relative to others, often
highlighting disparities and social inequalities. This type of need is commonly
used when considering poverty, where individuals may perceive themselves as
disadvantaged in comparison to others, even if their material circumstances do
not constitute objectively defined deprivation.
Bradshaw suggested that these categories are not mutually exclusive and that
real need is likely to be found at the intersection of these different types. This
framework is particularly useful in mental health and social care contexts, as it
recognises that multiple perspectives, including professional, individual, and
societal, shape understandings of need. By distinguishing between these types,
practitioners are better able to assess, prioritise, and respond to needs in a way
that is both person-centred and informed by professional standards, ensuring
that interventions address what is genuinely significant for the individual while
also considering broader social and normative expectations.
Bradshaw’s Taxonomy of Social Need was initially developed in relation to the
needs of older people, although its application has since broadened to
encompass healthcare and social care more widely. The taxonomy provides a
framework for understanding different types of need and highlights that need is
not a singular or universally agreed-upon concept. Bradshaw identified four key
types of need: normative, felt, expressed, and comparative.
Normative need refers to needs defined by experts or professionals, typically
based on societal norms or standards of wellbeing. This reflects the professional
judgement of what is considered necessary for an individual to function
adequately within society. Felt need, by contrast, is subjective and arises from
the individual’s own perception of their needs, often described as desires or
wants rather than objectively defined requirements. Expressed need, sometimes
called demand, occurs when a felt need is acted upon, for example when a
person seeks assistance, services, or resources to meet their perceived need.
Finally, comparative need involves understanding needs relative to others, often
highlighting disparities and social inequalities. This type of need is commonly
used when considering poverty, where individuals may perceive themselves as
disadvantaged in comparison to others, even if their material circumstances do
not constitute objectively defined deprivation.
Bradshaw suggested that these categories are not mutually exclusive and that
real need is likely to be found at the intersection of these different types. This
framework is particularly useful in mental health and social care contexts, as it
recognises that multiple perspectives, including professional, individual, and
societal, shape understandings of need. By distinguishing between these types,
practitioners are better able to assess, prioritise, and respond to needs in a way
that is both person-centred and informed by professional standards, ensuring
that interventions address what is genuinely significant for the individual while
also considering broader social and normative expectations.
