Katherine Fierlbeck , Lara Gautier , Susan Usher , Sara Allin , Veena Sriram , Peter Berman
{"title":"Testing “the science”: A comparative analysis of COVID-19 testing policy across four Canadian provinces","authors":"Katherine Fierlbeck , Lara Gautier , Susan Usher , Sara Allin , Veena Sriram , Peter Berman","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Following the COVID-19 pandemic, scholarship has focused on the intersection of politics and scientific evidence in the development, distribution and uptake of vaccines; border closures; and interventions such as public space closures or masking. But there is a significant gap in the examination of the political choices which informed how discrete jurisdictions chose to undertake and support COVID-19 testing. Using a qualitative, multiple-case study nested in a larger comparative, mixed-method explanatory case study, this research addresses this gap in the literature through a qualitative analysis based on 103 key stakeholder interviews to inform the narrative of testing strategy across four Canadian provinces. Despite the perception that testing is a largely “scientific” process relatively insulated from political choices and pressures, this study shows that jurisdictions had to address an array of variables, often specific to their region, which strongly influenced policy choices in this area. Testing policy, rather than a simple and straightforward clinical exercise, is a highly complex and nuanced process that must take into account a wide variety of non-clinical variables.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"371 ","pages":"Article 117880"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625002096","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Following the COVID-19 pandemic, scholarship has focused on the intersection of politics and scientific evidence in the development, distribution and uptake of vaccines; border closures; and interventions such as public space closures or masking. But there is a significant gap in the examination of the political choices which informed how discrete jurisdictions chose to undertake and support COVID-19 testing. Using a qualitative, multiple-case study nested in a larger comparative, mixed-method explanatory case study, this research addresses this gap in the literature through a qualitative analysis based on 103 key stakeholder interviews to inform the narrative of testing strategy across four Canadian provinces. Despite the perception that testing is a largely “scientific” process relatively insulated from political choices and pressures, this study shows that jurisdictions had to address an array of variables, often specific to their region, which strongly influenced policy choices in this area. Testing policy, rather than a simple and straightforward clinical exercise, is a highly complex and nuanced process that must take into account a wide variety of non-clinical variables.
期刊介绍:
Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.