Why ‘inclusive policymaking’ is needed during crises: COVID-19 and social divisions in Austria

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Isabella M. Radhuber , Katharina Kieslich , Katharina T. Paul , Gertrude Saxinger , Sebastian Ferstl , David Kraus , Stephen Roberts , Natália Varabyeu Kancelová , Barbara Prainsack
{"title":"Why ‘inclusive policymaking’ is needed during crises: COVID-19 and social divisions in Austria","authors":"Isabella M. Radhuber ,&nbsp;Katharina Kieslich ,&nbsp;Katharina T. Paul ,&nbsp;Gertrude Saxinger ,&nbsp;Sebastian Ferstl ,&nbsp;David Kraus ,&nbsp;Stephen Roberts ,&nbsp;Natália Varabyeu Kancelová ,&nbsp;Barbara Prainsack","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>During the COVID-19 pandemic, calls for unity from politicians and public health experts contrasted sharply with the rising social divisions between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Through 127 in-depth qualitative interviews conducted at two time points (October 2020 [n = 72], October 2021 [n = 55]) in Austria, a country with high vaccine hesitancy, this paper explores how and why deepening social divisions around vaccination occurred. Our findings emphasise the political determinants of health shaping these divisions at key moments of the pandemic. Respondents pointed to: 1) the divisive nature of public health policymaking during the vaccine rollout, and 2) how this created fertile ground for right-wing populist parties to exploit social divisions for their own gain. We argue that inclusive (i.e., non-divisive) policymaking is essential during crises to enhance public health interventions —and to address and prepare for ongoing and future global crises like disease outbreaks and the climate emergency.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100539"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

During the COVID-19 pandemic, calls for unity from politicians and public health experts contrasted sharply with the rising social divisions between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Through 127 in-depth qualitative interviews conducted at two time points (October 2020 [n = 72], October 2021 [n = 55]) in Austria, a country with high vaccine hesitancy, this paper explores how and why deepening social divisions around vaccination occurred. Our findings emphasise the political determinants of health shaping these divisions at key moments of the pandemic. Respondents pointed to: 1) the divisive nature of public health policymaking during the vaccine rollout, and 2) how this created fertile ground for right-wing populist parties to exploit social divisions for their own gain. We argue that inclusive (i.e., non-divisive) policymaking is essential during crises to enhance public health interventions —and to address and prepare for ongoing and future global crises like disease outbreaks and the climate emergency.
危机期间为什么需要“包容性政策制定”:COVID-19和奥地利的社会分裂
在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,政界人士和公共卫生专家呼吁团结一致,与此形成鲜明对比的是,接种疫苗和未接种疫苗的人之间的社会分歧日益加剧。本文通过在奥地利两个时间点(2020年10月[n = 72]和2021年10月[n = 55])进行127次深度定性访谈,探讨了围绕疫苗接种的社会分歧如何以及为什么会加深。奥地利是一个疫苗犹豫率很高的国家。我们的研究结果强调了在大流行的关键时刻形成这些分歧的卫生政治决定因素。受访者指出:1)疫苗推广期间公共卫生政策制定的分裂性质,以及2)这如何为右翼民粹主义政党利用社会分裂谋取私利创造了肥沃的土壤。我们认为,在危机期间,包容性(即非分裂性)政策制定对于加强公共卫生干预以及应对当前和未来的全球危机(如疾病爆发和气候紧急情况)和做好准备至关重要。
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
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信