公共卫生咨询系统的网络动态:比利时、魁北克、瑞典和瑞士的 COVID-19 科学建议比较分析

Governance Pub Date : 2024-07-20 DOI:10.1111/gove.12885
Antoine Lemor, Éric Montpetit, Shoghig Téhinian, Clarisse Ven Belleghem, Steven Eichenberger, PerOla Öberg, Frédéric Varone, David Aubin, Jean‐Louis Denis
{"title":"公共卫生咨询系统的网络动态:比利时、魁北克、瑞典和瑞士的 COVID-19 科学建议比较分析","authors":"Antoine Lemor, Éric Montpetit, Shoghig Téhinian, Clarisse Ven Belleghem, Steven Eichenberger, PerOla Öberg, Frédéric Varone, David Aubin, Jean‐Louis Denis","doi":"10.1111/gove.12885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study presents a dual‐method approach to systematically analyze public health advisory networks during the COVID‐19 pandemic across four jurisdictions: Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland. Using network analysis inspired by egocentric analysis and a subsystems approach adapted to public health, the research investigates network structures and their openness to new actors and ideas. The findings reveal significant variations in network configurations, with differences in density, centralization, and the role of central actors. The study also uncovers a relation between network openness and its structural attributes, highlighting the impact of network composition on the flow and control of expert advice. These insights into public health advisory networks contribute to understanding the interface between scientific advice and policymaking, emphasizing the importance of network characteristics in shaping the influence of expert advisors. The article underscores the relevance of systematic network descriptions in public policy, offering reflections on expert accountability, information diversity, and the broader implications for democratic governance.","PeriodicalId":501138,"journal":{"name":"Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Network dynamics in public health advisory systems: A comparative analysis of scientific advice for COVID‐19 in Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland\",\"authors\":\"Antoine Lemor, Éric Montpetit, Shoghig Téhinian, Clarisse Ven Belleghem, Steven Eichenberger, PerOla Öberg, Frédéric Varone, David Aubin, Jean‐Louis Denis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/gove.12885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study presents a dual‐method approach to systematically analyze public health advisory networks during the COVID‐19 pandemic across four jurisdictions: Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland. Using network analysis inspired by egocentric analysis and a subsystems approach adapted to public health, the research investigates network structures and their openness to new actors and ideas. The findings reveal significant variations in network configurations, with differences in density, centralization, and the role of central actors. The study also uncovers a relation between network openness and its structural attributes, highlighting the impact of network composition on the flow and control of expert advice. These insights into public health advisory networks contribute to understanding the interface between scientific advice and policymaking, emphasizing the importance of network characteristics in shaping the influence of expert advisors. The article underscores the relevance of systematic network descriptions in public policy, offering reflections on expert accountability, information diversity, and the broader implications for democratic governance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Governance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12885\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究采用双重方法对 COVID-19 大流行期间四个辖区的公共卫生咨询网络进行了系统分析:比利时、魁北克、瑞典和瑞士。该研究利用受自我中心分析启发的网络分析和适用于公共卫生的子系统方法,调查了网络结构及其对新参与者和新想法的开放性。研究结果揭示了网络结构的显著差异,在密度、集中化和中心参与者的作用方面都存在差异。研究还发现了网络开放性与其结构属性之间的关系,突出了网络构成对专家建议的流动和控制的影响。对公共卫生咨询网络的这些见解有助于理解科学建议与政策制定之间的关系,强调了网络特征在塑造专家顾问影响力方面的重要性。文章强调了公共政策中系统网络描述的相关性,对专家问责制、信息多样性以及民主治理的广泛影响进行了思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Network dynamics in public health advisory systems: A comparative analysis of scientific advice for COVID‐19 in Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland
This study presents a dual‐method approach to systematically analyze public health advisory networks during the COVID‐19 pandemic across four jurisdictions: Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland. Using network analysis inspired by egocentric analysis and a subsystems approach adapted to public health, the research investigates network structures and their openness to new actors and ideas. The findings reveal significant variations in network configurations, with differences in density, centralization, and the role of central actors. The study also uncovers a relation between network openness and its structural attributes, highlighting the impact of network composition on the flow and control of expert advice. These insights into public health advisory networks contribute to understanding the interface between scientific advice and policymaking, emphasizing the importance of network characteristics in shaping the influence of expert advisors. The article underscores the relevance of systematic network descriptions in public policy, offering reflections on expert accountability, information diversity, and the broader implications for democratic governance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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