民粹主义观点如何影响接受与covid -19无关的公共卫生干预措施:对定量研究的系统回顾。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Kaitlin Conway-Moore, Jack M Birch, Alison R McKinlay, Fiona Graham, Emily Oliver, Clare Bambra, Michael P Kelly, Chris Bonell
{"title":"民粹主义观点如何影响接受与covid -19无关的公共卫生干预措施:对定量研究的系统回顾。","authors":"Kaitlin Conway-Moore, Jack M Birch, Alison R McKinlay, Fiona Graham, Emily Oliver, Clare Bambra, Michael P Kelly, Chris Bonell","doi":"10.1186/s12889-025-23265-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Globally, there is increasing evidence of resistance to government-led public health interventions in areas such as vaccination, climate change mitigation, sexual and reproductive healthcare, and the implementation of non-pharmaceutical infection control measures. One potential explanation for this could be the documented global rise in populist attitudes, characterised by distrust of scientific, government and other perceived 'elites.' While the effect of such attitudes on engagement with COVID-19-related interventions has been extensively considered and researched, their association with the receipt of other public health interventions is currently underexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To understand how populist-aligned views might influence the receipt of public health interventions addressing areas other than COVID-19, we systematically reviewed quantitative research published across thirteen bibliographic databases and relevant websites between 2008 and 2024. All studies were set in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 30 included studies, the vast majority of which were cross-sectional, we found evidence that populist-aligned attitudes have a negative impact on the receipt of public health interventions including vaccinations, sexual and reproductive health care and preventive health care. We also found preliminary evidence of the negative role of populist-aligned attitudes on the receipt of disease screening related to HIV/AIDS and adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions during times of public health emergency, such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although providing limited evidence of causality, the findings from this review suggest the need for future policy in many OECD countries to focus on trust-building between the public and political, scientific, and medical establishments. They also indicate the need for mitigation strategies to overcome the potentially negative impact of populist-style hostility towards out-groups on attitudes related to pressing public health issues such as abortion and family planning, for example by drawing on empathy-centred approaches.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration number CRD42024513124.</p>","PeriodicalId":9039,"journal":{"name":"BMC Public Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"2075"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12135260/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How populist-aligned views affect receipt of non-COVID-19-related public health interventions: a systematic review of quantitative studies.\",\"authors\":\"Kaitlin Conway-Moore, Jack M Birch, Alison R McKinlay, Fiona Graham, Emily Oliver, Clare Bambra, Michael P Kelly, Chris Bonell\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12889-025-23265-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Globally, there is increasing evidence of resistance to government-led public health interventions in areas such as vaccination, climate change mitigation, sexual and reproductive healthcare, and the implementation of non-pharmaceutical infection control measures. One potential explanation for this could be the documented global rise in populist attitudes, characterised by distrust of scientific, government and other perceived 'elites.' While the effect of such attitudes on engagement with COVID-19-related interventions has been extensively considered and researched, their association with the receipt of other public health interventions is currently underexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To understand how populist-aligned views might influence the receipt of public health interventions addressing areas other than COVID-19, we systematically reviewed quantitative research published across thirteen bibliographic databases and relevant websites between 2008 and 2024. All studies were set in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 30 included studies, the vast majority of which were cross-sectional, we found evidence that populist-aligned attitudes have a negative impact on the receipt of public health interventions including vaccinations, sexual and reproductive health care and preventive health care. We also found preliminary evidence of the negative role of populist-aligned attitudes on the receipt of disease screening related to HIV/AIDS and adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions during times of public health emergency, such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although providing limited evidence of causality, the findings from this review suggest the need for future policy in many OECD countries to focus on trust-building between the public and political, scientific, and medical establishments. They also indicate the need for mitigation strategies to overcome the potentially negative impact of populist-style hostility towards out-groups on attitudes related to pressing public health issues such as abortion and family planning, for example by drawing on empathy-centred approaches.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration number CRD42024513124.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Public Health\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"2075\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12135260/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23265-3\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23265-3","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

摘要

背景:在全球范围内,越来越多的证据表明,在疫苗接种、减缓气候变化、性保健和生殖保健以及实施非药物感染控制措施等领域,对政府主导的公共卫生干预措施存在抵制。一种可能的解释是,民粹主义态度在全球范围内的上升,其特征是不信任科学、政府和其他被认为是“精英”的人。虽然这种态度对参与与covid -19相关的干预措施的影响已经得到了广泛的考虑和研究,但它们与接受其他公共卫生干预措施的关系目前尚未得到充分探讨。方法:为了了解民粹主义观点如何影响针对COVID-19以外地区的公共卫生干预措施的接受,我们系统地回顾了2008年至2024年间在13个书目数据库和相关网站上发表的定量研究。所有的研究都是在经济合作与发展组织(经合发组织)的成员国进行的。结果:在纳入的30项研究中,绝大多数是横断面研究,我们发现证据表明,民粹主义一致的态度对接受公共卫生干预措施(包括疫苗接种、性和生殖保健以及预防性保健)产生负面影响。我们还发现了初步证据,表明在公共卫生紧急情况(如2009年H1N1流感大流行)期间,民粹主义态度对接受与艾滋病毒/艾滋病相关的疾病筛查和坚持非药物干预措施的负面作用。结论:虽然提供了有限的因果关系证据,但本综述的结果表明,许多经合组织国家未来的政策需要侧重于建立公众与政治、科学和医疗机构之间的信任。它们还表明,需要制定缓解战略,以克服民粹主义式对外群体的敌意对与堕胎和计划生育等紧迫公共卫生问题有关的态度可能产生的负面影响,例如采用以同情为中心的方法。系统评审注册:PROSPERO注册号CRD42024513124。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How populist-aligned views affect receipt of non-COVID-19-related public health interventions: a systematic review of quantitative studies.

Background: Globally, there is increasing evidence of resistance to government-led public health interventions in areas such as vaccination, climate change mitigation, sexual and reproductive healthcare, and the implementation of non-pharmaceutical infection control measures. One potential explanation for this could be the documented global rise in populist attitudes, characterised by distrust of scientific, government and other perceived 'elites.' While the effect of such attitudes on engagement with COVID-19-related interventions has been extensively considered and researched, their association with the receipt of other public health interventions is currently underexplored.

Methods: To understand how populist-aligned views might influence the receipt of public health interventions addressing areas other than COVID-19, we systematically reviewed quantitative research published across thirteen bibliographic databases and relevant websites between 2008 and 2024. All studies were set in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Results: Across 30 included studies, the vast majority of which were cross-sectional, we found evidence that populist-aligned attitudes have a negative impact on the receipt of public health interventions including vaccinations, sexual and reproductive health care and preventive health care. We also found preliminary evidence of the negative role of populist-aligned attitudes on the receipt of disease screening related to HIV/AIDS and adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions during times of public health emergency, such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Conclusions: Although providing limited evidence of causality, the findings from this review suggest the need for future policy in many OECD countries to focus on trust-building between the public and political, scientific, and medical establishments. They also indicate the need for mitigation strategies to overcome the potentially negative impact of populist-style hostility towards out-groups on attitudes related to pressing public health issues such as abortion and family planning, for example by drawing on empathy-centred approaches.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42024513124.

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
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
2108
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
×
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