Testing “the science”: A comparative analysis of COVID-19 testing policy across four Canadian provinces

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
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 ,&nbsp;Lara Gautier ,&nbsp;Susan Usher ,&nbsp;Sara Allin ,&nbsp;Veena Sriram ,&nbsp;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.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
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.
×
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