An uncertain risk:The World Health Organization's account of H1N1

ArgumentScientific uncertainty is fundamental to the management of contemporary global risks. In 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the start of the H1N1 Influenza Pandemic. This declaration signified the risk posed by the spread of the H1N1 virus, and in turn precipitated a range of actions by global public health actors. This article analyzes the WHO's public representation of risk and examines the centrality of scientific uncertainty in the case of H1N1. It argues that the WHO's risk narrative reflected the context of scientific uncertainty in which it was working. The WHO argued that it was attempting to remain faithful to the scientific evidence, and the uncertain nature of the threat. However, as a result, the WHO's public risk narrative was neither consistent nor socially robust, leading to the eventual contestation of the WHO's position by other global public health actors, most notably the Council of Europe. This illustrates both the significance of scientific uncertainty in the investigation of risk, and the difficulty for risk managing institutions in effectively acting in the face of this uncertainty.</jats:p

Vaccine narratives and public health:Investigating criticisms of H1N1 pandemic vaccination

Vaccine hesitancy is often understood and explored on the level of individual decision-making. However, questions surrounding the risk and efficacy of vaccination are evident in wider public discourse; social narratives of vaccination inform and impact on the individual level. This paper takes a narrative analysis approach from the sociology of health to examine data drawn from a wider study on global public health responses to the H1N1 pandemic. The paper concentrates upon criticisms to mass vaccination as recounted within the Council of Europe’s debate of the handling of H1N1. It shows that three narratives were particularly dominant: problematizing the use of vaccination as a public health response; criticising the efficacy of the vaccines; and, questioning the safety of the strategy. This debate presents an important case study in understanding the way in which vaccines are problematized within the public discourse

What constitutes “good” evidence for public health and social policy-making? From hierarchies to appropriateness

Within public health, and increasingly other areas of social policy, there are widespread calls to increase or improve the use of evidence for policy-making. Often these calls rest on an assumption that increased evidence utilisation will be a more efficient or effective means of achieving social goals. Yet a clear elucidation of what can be considered ?good evidence? for policy is rarely articulated. Many of the current discussions of best practise in the health policy sector derive from the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement, embracing the ?hierarchy of evidence? that places experimental trials as pre-eminent in terms of methodological quality. However, a number of problems arise if these hierarchies are used to rank or prioritise policy relevance. Challenges in applying evidence hierarchies to policy questions arise from the fact that the EBM hierarchies rank evidence of intervention effect on a specified and limited number of outcomes. Previous authors have noted that evidence forms at the top of such hierarchies typically serve the needs and realities of clinical medicine, but not necessarily public policy. We build on past insights by applying three disciplinary perspectives from political science, the philosophy of science and the sociology of knowledge to illustrate the limitations of a single evidence hierarchy to guide health policy choices, while simultaneously providing new conceptualisations suited to achieve health sector goals. In doing so, we provide an alternative approach that re-frames ?good? evidence for health policy as a question of appropriateness. Rather than adhering to a single hierarchy of evidence to judge what constitutes ?good? evidence for policy, it is more useful to examine evidence through the lens of appropriateness. The form of evidence, the determination of relevant categories and variables, and the weight given to any piece of evidence, must suit the policy needs at hand. A more robust and critical examination of relevant and appropriate evidence can ensure that the best possible evidence of various forms is used to achieve health policy goals

Risk, uncertainty and medical practice:Changes in the medical professions following disaster

Risk and uncertainty can destabilise and reconstruct the relationships between medicine, policy and publics. Through semi-structured interviews with medical staff following the Fukushima 3.11 Disaster, this paper demonstrates the way in which disruption (caused by disaster), coupled with uncertainty (in this case, around radiation risk) can serve to transform medical practices. After Fukushima, a deficit in publicly-trusted approaches to disaster management meant that the role and status of key medical professionals was transformed. This reorganisation of medical work included the development of new forms of expertise, the stretching of expertise beyond previously well-defined professional boundaries, and shifts in the way in which medical professionals understand and interact with publics. These changes signified the rise of new relationships between the medical workers and their community, as well as adjustments in what were regarded as the boundaries of medical work. Given both the ubiquitous threat of disasters and calls for increased engagement between the medicine and the public, this case study provides insight into the forms which such engagements can take, especially when bound by conditions of uncertainty. The paper draws upon the theoretical literature around the impact of uncertainty on policy, and combines this with medical sociological literature on the nature of medical expertise. The paper examines the shifting of medical expertise towards mode 2 forms, and evidences the impact of a democratised science of risk on the roles and functions of medical practice

Disappearing everyday materials:The displacement of medical resources following disaster in Fukushima, Japan

This study draws upon interviews of medical staff working in the city of Minamisoma, Japan, following the 2011 Triple Disaster. It investigates staff responses to the disruption of material resources as a consequence of the disaster and its management. The disruption of spaces, and the loss of oxygen supplies, food, and medications impacted upon staff experience and the ability of institutions to care for patients. This resulted in a restructuring of spaces and materials as workers made efforts to reconfigure and reestablish healthcare functions. This is one of the few qualitative studies which draws upon the experience and perspectives of health workers in understanding material disruption following disaster. This is particularly important since this case did not involve the breakdown of lifeline infrastructure, but rather, brought to attention the way everyday material objects shape social experience. In highlighting these effects, the paper makes the case for the social scientific investigation of the impact of disasters on healthcare, shedding light on an area of research currently dominated by disaster medicine

COVID-19: challenges faced by Nepalese migrants living in Japan

Worldwide, COVID-19 has exacerbated the vulnerability of migrants, impacting many facets of their lives. Nepalese make up one of the largest groups of migrants residing in Japan. Crises, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could disproportionately affect migrants from low- and middle-income countries like Nepal, widening health and economic inequalities. An in-depth, comprehensive assessment is needed to appraise the diverse problems they encounter. Drawing upon qualitative interviews, this study aimed to identify challenges faced by Nepalese migrants in Japan as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and to discuss their needs to counter these challenges. This qualitative study employed an interpretivist approach to appraise the first-hand experience of Nepalese migrants living in Japan. Fourteen participants (8 males and 6 females, aged 21 to 47 years old) were recruited to participate in semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews (45–60 min) regarding: (a) their perceived current physical and mental health, (b) problems faced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and (c) perception of available and necessary support structures. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to recruit the participants. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Six themes were identified: 1) experiencing psychosomatic symptoms, 2) adoption of new healthy behaviors, 3) financial hardship, 4) family concerns, 5) reflections on discrimination and 6) reflections of existing support and expectations of support systems. The findings of our study illustrate the specific impact of COVID-19 among Nepalese migrants regarding their unstable employment conditions, perceived lack of social support, possible obligation to send money home, difficulty in accessing services due to the language barrier, and a lack of effective governmental support from Nepal. Pandemic-related adversity has negatively impacted migrants’ mental well-being, exacerbating their vulnerability. Comprehensive and timely support should be provided to the vulnerable migrant population. Effective coordination among relevant parties in both countries, including the governments concerned, should be facilitated.Institute of Medical Care and Societal Health, Japan

A forum on the Zika virus

Luciana Brondi – ORCID: 0000-0001-6221-4440 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6221-4440Item not available in this repository.http://somatosphere.net/2016/a-forum-on-the-zika-virus.html