Partisanship, policy options, and risk: Perceived influence of political partisanship on health emergency preparedness

IF 1.9 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy Pub Date : 2021-05-05 DOI:10.1002/RHC3.12223

Nathan Myers

{"title":"Partisanship, policy options, and risk: Perceived influence of political partisanship on health emergency preparedness","authors":"Nathan Myers","doi":"10.1002/RHC3.12223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 21st century has seen the emergence of two novel coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and COVID-19 (coronavirus infectious disease of 2019) In the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Republicans and Democrats were united in their concerns regarding SARS and the potential threat of biological weapons That united front was not to be seen during the 2016 debate over supplemental funding for Zika The primary focus of this study is whether the perception of partisanship in the public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) area affects attitudes about policy options regarding PHEP To investigate these issues, a Qualtrics online survey of members of hospital preparedness coalitions was conducted The survey questions covered issues such as the level of governmental priority placed on fighting infectious disease, respondents' level of confidence that the essential functions of government are being managed, the role of partisanship in PHEP decision making, and support for proposals to reform the government's infectious disease response A statistically significant association was found between respondents' reporting that partisanship in PHEP presents a risk of injury or death and support for all the proposed reforms, indicating a desire to decentralize PHEP activities and a need to reinvigorate PHEP bipartisanship © 2021 Policy Studies Organization","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/RHC3.12223","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/RHC3.12223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 21st century has seen the emergence of two novel coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and COVID-19 (coronavirus infectious disease of 2019) In the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Republicans and Democrats were united in their concerns regarding SARS and the potential threat of biological weapons That united front was not to be seen during the 2016 debate over supplemental funding for Zika The primary focus of this study is whether the perception of partisanship in the public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) area affects attitudes about policy options regarding PHEP To investigate these issues, a Qualtrics online survey of members of hospital preparedness coalitions was conducted The survey questions covered issues such as the level of governmental priority placed on fighting infectious disease, respondents' level of confidence that the essential functions of government are being managed, the role of partisanship in PHEP decision making, and support for proposals to reform the government's infectious disease response A statistically significant association was found between respondents' reporting that partisanship in PHEP presents a risk of injury or death and support for all the proposed reforms, indicating a desire to decentralize PHEP activities and a need to reinvigorate PHEP bipartisanship © 2021 Policy Studies Organization

查看原文本刊更多论文

党派、政策选择和风险：政治党派对卫生应急准备的感知影响

21世纪出现了两种新型冠状病毒，严重急性呼吸综合征（SARS）和新冠肺炎（2019年冠状病毒传染病）。2001年9·11袭击事件后，共和党人和民主党人在对SARS和生物武器潜在威胁的担忧上团结一致。在2016年关于寨卡病毒补充资金的辩论中，没有看到统一战线。本研究的主要焦点是公共卫生应急准备（PHEP）领域的党派偏见是否会影响对PHEP政策选择的态度为了调查这些问题，Qualtrics对医院准备联盟的成员进行了一项在线调查。调查问题包括政府对抗击传染病的重视程度、受访者对政府基本职能得到管理的信心程度、党派在PHEP决策中的作用、，以及对改革政府传染病应对措施的建议的支持在受访者报告PHEP中的党派偏见存在伤害或死亡风险与支持所有拟议改革之间发现了统计上显著的关联，表明希望分散公共卫生政策活动，并需要重振公共卫生政策两党合作©2021政策研究组织

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

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-

CiteScore

7.50

自引率

8.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Scholarship on risk, hazards, and crises (emergencies, disasters, or public policy/organizational crises) has developed into mature and distinct fields of inquiry. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy (RHCPP) addresses the governance implications of the important questions raised for the respective fields. The relationships between risk, hazards, and crisis raise fundamental questions with broad social science and policy implications. During unstable situations of acute or chronic danger and substantial uncertainty (i.e. a crisis), important and deeply rooted societal institutions, norms, and values come into play. The purpose of RHCPP is to provide a forum for research and commentary that examines societies’ understanding of and measures to address risk,hazards, and crises, how public policies do and should address these concerns, and to what effect. The journal is explicitly designed to encourage a broad range of perspectives by integrating work from a variety of disciplines. The journal will look at social science theory and policy design across the spectrum of risks and crises — including natural and technological hazards, public health crises, terrorism, and societal and environmental disasters. Papers will analyze the ways societies deal with both unpredictable and predictable events as public policy questions, which include topics such as crisis governance, loss and liability, emergency response, agenda setting, and the social and cultural contexts in which hazards, risks and crises are perceived and defined. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy invites dialogue and is open to new approaches. We seek scholarly work that combines academic quality with practical relevance. We especially welcome authors writing on the governance of risk and crises to submit their manuscripts.