报纸对英国医护人员强制接种 COVID-19 疫苗的报道:定性框架分析

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Journal of Health Communication Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1080/10810730.2024.2394763
Heather Wilson, Martin McKee
{"title":"报纸对英国医护人员强制接种 COVID-19 疫苗的报道:定性框架分析","authors":"Heather Wilson, Martin McKee","doi":"10.1080/10810730.2024.2394763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2021, vaccination against COVID-19 became mandatory for healthcare workers in England. The media coverage of the mandate was extensive and became an issue of public interest. This study aimed to understand the United Kingdom (UK) debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination through a framing analysis of UK media coverage. Articles written between November 2021 and April 2022 were identified from UK national newspapers: The Daily (and Sunday) Telegraph, the Times (and Sunday Times), the Guardian (and the Observer), the Independent, the Daily Mail (and Mail on Sunday), the Daily Mirror, the Daily Express, and the Sun. Articles were selected using eligibility criteria before framing analysis was undertaken. The sample included 204 articles. Safe Staffing, Treatment of Staff, Change in Covid Context, and Protect Patient Safety were identified as frames used to stimulate debate on the mandatory vaccination policy. Such frames established three broader concepts in the media: civil liberty theory, duty-based ethics, and social-vulnerability theory. This study analyzed how mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers in England was framed in the UK national media. The broader concepts built in the media heightened debate on the policy, creating a voluminous amount of coverage and criticism that may have played a role in the mandate's reversal.</p>","PeriodicalId":16026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Newspaper Representation of Mandatory Vaccination Against COVID-19 for Healthcare Workers in England: A Qualitative Framing Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Heather Wilson, Martin McKee\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10810730.2024.2394763\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In 2021, vaccination against COVID-19 became mandatory for healthcare workers in England. The media coverage of the mandate was extensive and became an issue of public interest. This study aimed to understand the United Kingdom (UK) debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination through a framing analysis of UK media coverage. Articles written between November 2021 and April 2022 were identified from UK national newspapers: The Daily (and Sunday) Telegraph, the Times (and Sunday Times), the Guardian (and the Observer), the Independent, the Daily Mail (and Mail on Sunday), the Daily Mirror, the Daily Express, and the Sun. Articles were selected using eligibility criteria before framing analysis was undertaken. The sample included 204 articles. Safe Staffing, Treatment of Staff, Change in Covid Context, and Protect Patient Safety were identified as frames used to stimulate debate on the mandatory vaccination policy. Such frames established three broader concepts in the media: civil liberty theory, duty-based ethics, and social-vulnerability theory. This study analyzed how mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers in England was framed in the UK national media. The broader concepts built in the media heightened debate on the policy, creating a voluminous amount of coverage and criticism that may have played a role in the mandate's reversal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2394763\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2394763","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2021 年,COVID-19 疫苗成为英格兰医护人员的强制疫苗。媒体对该强制规定进行了广泛报道,并成为公众关注的问题。本研究旨在通过对英国媒体报道的框架分析,了解英国关于强制接种 COVID-19 疫苗的讨论。研究人员从英国全国性报纸中找到了 2021 年 11 月至 2022 年 4 月间撰写的文章:每日电讯报》(和《星期日电讯报》)、《泰晤士报》(和《星期日泰晤士报》)、《卫报》(和《观察家报》)、《独立报》、《每日邮报》(和《星期日邮报》)、《每日镜报》、《每日快报》和《太阳报》。在进行框架分析之前,根据资格标准对文章进行了筛选。样本包括 204 篇文章。安全的人员配备、员工待遇、Covid 环境的变化以及保护患者安全被确定为用于激发对强制疫苗接种政策的讨论的框架。这些框架在媒体中确立了三个更广泛的概念:公民自由理论、责任伦理和社会脆弱性理论。本研究分析了英国国家媒体是如何为英国医护人员强制接种 COVID-19 疫苗的。媒体中建立的更广泛的概念加剧了对该政策的讨论,产生了大量的报道和批评,这可能是该强制措施被撤销的原因之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Newspaper Representation of Mandatory Vaccination Against COVID-19 for Healthcare Workers in England: A Qualitative Framing Analysis.

In 2021, vaccination against COVID-19 became mandatory for healthcare workers in England. The media coverage of the mandate was extensive and became an issue of public interest. This study aimed to understand the United Kingdom (UK) debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination through a framing analysis of UK media coverage. Articles written between November 2021 and April 2022 were identified from UK national newspapers: The Daily (and Sunday) Telegraph, the Times (and Sunday Times), the Guardian (and the Observer), the Independent, the Daily Mail (and Mail on Sunday), the Daily Mirror, the Daily Express, and the Sun. Articles were selected using eligibility criteria before framing analysis was undertaken. The sample included 204 articles. Safe Staffing, Treatment of Staff, Change in Covid Context, and Protect Patient Safety were identified as frames used to stimulate debate on the mandatory vaccination policy. Such frames established three broader concepts in the media: civil liberty theory, duty-based ethics, and social-vulnerability theory. This study analyzed how mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers in England was framed in the UK national media. The broader concepts built in the media heightened debate on the policy, creating a voluminous amount of coverage and criticism that may have played a role in the mandate's reversal.

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
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives is the leading journal covering the full breadth of a field that focuses on the communication of health information globally. Articles feature research on: • Developments in the field of health communication; • New media, m-health and interactive health communication; • Health Literacy; • Social marketing; • Global Health; • Shared decision making and ethics; • Interpersonal and mass media communication; • Advances in health diplomacy, psychology, government, policy and education; • Government, civil society and multi-stakeholder initiatives; • Public Private partnerships and • Public Health campaigns. Global in scope, the journal seeks to advance a synergistic relationship between research and practical information. With a focus on promoting the health literacy of the individual, caregiver, provider, community, and those in the health policy, the journal presents research, progress in areas of technology and public health, ethics, politics and policy, and the application of health communication principles. The journal is selective with the highest quality social scientific research including qualitative and quantitative studies.
×
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