Strategies to Promote Vaccine Uptake in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Exploring the "Ladder of Intrusiveness" in Three Countries.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Mirella Cacace, Michele Castelli, Federico Toth
{"title":"Strategies to Promote Vaccine Uptake in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Exploring the \"Ladder of Intrusiveness\" in Three Countries.","authors":"Mirella Cacace, Michele Castelli, Federico Toth","doi":"10.1215/03616878-10910251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>A key task for countries around the world facing the COVID-19 pandemic was to achieve high vaccination coverage of the population. To overcome \"vaccination inertia,\" governments adopted a variety of policy instruments. These instruments can be placed along a \"ladder of intrusiveness\" based on their degree of constraint of individual freedoms. The aim of this study is to investigate how the governments of three European countries moved along the ladder of intrusiveness and how the choice of policy instruments was influenced by contextual factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study draws on secondary data sources, including academic and gray literature, policy documents, and opinion polls, over an observation period from December 2020 to summer 2022. The study employs inductive logic to analyze data and identify the factors explaining similarities and differences across England, Germany, and Italy.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The study identifies similarities and differences in how the three countries advanced along the ladder of intrusiveness. Contextual factors such as policy legacy, social acceptability, and ideological orientation contribute to explain the observations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Country-specific contextual factors play an important role in understanding the choice of policy instruments adopted by the three countries. Policy makers should carefully consider these factors when planning immunization strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"133-162"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10910251","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: A key task for countries around the world facing the COVID-19 pandemic was to achieve high vaccination coverage of the population. To overcome "vaccination inertia," governments adopted a variety of policy instruments. These instruments can be placed along a "ladder of intrusiveness" based on their degree of constraint of individual freedoms. The aim of this study is to investigate how the governments of three European countries moved along the ladder of intrusiveness and how the choice of policy instruments was influenced by contextual factors.

Methods: The study draws on secondary data sources, including academic and gray literature, policy documents, and opinion polls, over an observation period from December 2020 to summer 2022. The study employs inductive logic to analyze data and identify the factors explaining similarities and differences across England, Germany, and Italy.

Findings: The study identifies similarities and differences in how the three countries advanced along the ladder of intrusiveness. Contextual factors such as policy legacy, social acceptability, and ideological orientation contribute to explain the observations.

Conclusions: Country-specific contextual factors play an important role in understanding the choice of policy instruments adopted by the three countries. Policy makers should carefully consider these factors when planning immunization strategies.

在 COVID-19 大流行中促进疫苗接种的策略:在三个国家探索 "侵入性阶梯"。
背景:面对 COVID-19 大流行,世界各国的一项关键任务是实现人口的高疫苗接种覆盖率。为了克服 "疫苗接种惰性",各国政府采取了各种政策手段。根据对个人自由的限制程度,可以将这些手段划分为 "侵扰性阶梯"。本研究旨在探讨三个欧洲国家的政府如何沿着侵扰性阶梯前进,以及政策工具的选择如何受到环境因素的影响:本研究利用二手数据来源,包括学术和灰色文献、政策文件和民意调查,观察期为 2020 年 12 月至 2022 年夏季。研究采用归纳式逻辑来分析数据,并找出解释英国、德国和意大利异同的因素:研究发现了这三个国家如何沿着侵扰性阶梯前进的异同。政策遗产、社会接受度和意识形态取向等背景因素有助于解释这些观察结果:各国的具体国情因素在理解这三个国家所采取的政策工具的选择方面发挥了重要作用。决策者在规划免疫战略时应仔细考虑这些因素。
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
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信