Health policy and controlling Covid-19 in England: sociological insights

The global Covid-19 pandemic is posing considerable challenges for governments throughout the world and has and will have a significant influence on the shape of peoples social and economic life and well-being in the short and longer term. This opinion paper discusses the current health policy response adopted in England to control or manage the epidemic and identifies the key sociological and political influences which have shaped these policies. Drawing on the theoretical approach set out in his recent book which lays emphasis on the interplay of powerful structural and economic interest groups, the author will consider the influence of the key players. Government policy has, at least initially, tied itself to scientific and medical evidence and protecting the NHS so the key roles of the medical profession, public health scientific community and NHS management and their respective and relative powerful influences will be discussed. The government needs the support of the public if their policies are to be successful, so how have the government addressed maintaining public trust in this ‘crisis’ and how much trust do the public have in the government and what has influenced it? The strong emphasis on social distancing and social isolation in the national government policy response to Covid-19 has placed an increasing public reliance on the traditional and social media for sources of information so how the media has framed the policy will be considered. One policy aim is for an effective vaccine and the influence of the drug industry in its development is discussed. Finally, the role of the state will be discussed and what has shaped its social and economic policies

Decision-making in the midst of uncertainty: appraising expensive medicines in England

Decisions need to be made about which services or technologies should be prioritized for provision in the NHS in England .The analysis focuses specifically on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and on how they appraise expensive medicines. This analysis takes a sociological perspective on decision-making in relation to uncertainty and how uncertainties are managed, drawing on evidence from a scoping study and an ethnographic study. Uncertainties were central to these rationing decisions.Three types of layers of uncertainty -epistemic, procedural and interpersonal – were shown to be salient. Another form of uncertainty was associated with the complexity of the science and that included the level of technicality of the information provided. The analysis highlighted the salience of uncertainties associated with interpersonal relations and the relations between the committees and the drug industry, clinical and patient experts. A key element in these relationships was trust. Decision makers adopted a mixture of formal and informal, collective and individual strategies in making decisions and a need to exercise pragmatism within a more formal institutional framework. The paper concludes by considering more recent policy developments in relation to appraising expensive medicines

Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals (STAs): How does NICE incorporate patient perspectives?

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides guidance and recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, basing its decisions on a review of clinical and economic evidence principally, at least for STAs, provided by the drug manufacturer. The advice provided by NICE is aimed at overcoming the previously ad hoc, discretionary decisions in order to standardise access to healthcare technologies across England based on evidence. A Single Technological Appraisal (STA) is one element of NICE’s decision-making processes in which evidence about a selected technology (often medicines) is evaluated in 3 distinct phases (scoping, assessment and appraisal). In the last phase of this process an independent Appraisal Committee evaluates evidence in a meeting, partly held in public with the latter half taking place in a ‘closed’ session. During the meeting, the Appraisal Committee considers evidence based on clinical and cost-effectiveness, as well as from statements expressed by patients, commissioning experts and clinical specialists. The Institute encourages experts attending the meeting to provide both written and oral commentary about their personal view in the current management of the condition and the expected role and use of the technology – in particular how it might provide benefit to patients. Yet, NICE and its committees find themselves in a potentially incongruous position: how to take on board the experiential evidence from individual experts along with the evidence on cost-effectiveness when reaching a decision, about whether or not to recommend a treatment on cost-effectiveness grounds. This paper considers how NICE committees incorporate the views of patient perspectives in making rationing decisions about STAs. The findings from the study will discuss where points of tension / conflict arise during meetings and how Committee members navigate experiential accounts with scientific data, which types of patient perspectives are regarded favourably and which perspectives are treated with greater caution (tension between representing patients views vs tokenism), and will highlight how Committee members in fact reflect upon their own personal experience and background in the appraisal process, and thereby are at odds with retaining an element of neutrality in decision-making, as they contend with combining their own subjective views alongside considerations of rationing in the STA process. The analysis is drawn from an ESRC funded study which used an ethnographic approach to understand the decision making process within STAs involving three contrasting pharmaceutical products. Data collection methods included analysis of documentary evidence released by NICE, non-participant unstructured observations of nine STA meetings, and qualitative interviews with key informants (n=41) involved in each of the three case studies

Covid 19 and Deprivation: Levelling Upstream

COVID-19 and its socio-economic and public health impact has provided the opportunity for the government to seriously pursue its stated political aim of levelling up.The greater risk of serious illness and death experienced by poorer and marginalised socio-economic groups have been reflected and exacerbated directly by COVID-19. Thus, there is a clear need to refocus policies further upstream digging deeper into the structural causes of absolute and relative deprivation

A critical analysis of newspaper accounts of violence against doctors in India

This paper presents a critical analysis of newspaper articles (N = 60) published in a leading vernacular newspaper about violence against doctors in India. Adopting a theoretical perspective that considers ‘news as a cultural practice,’ a qualitative content analysis was conducted to examine how the phenomenon is framed and presented in the news, i.e., what is problematized, what causal links are drawn or hinted at, what moral stance is taken or alluded to, and what solutions are proffered and why, to arrive at a nuanced understanding of various aspects of this social phenomenon. Three overlapping key themes emerged from the analysis, namely the narrative of victimization, the changing doctor-patient relationship, and the crisis facing the ‘noble profession’ of medicine. It reveals how the media shapes public opinion and attitudes towards the state of the medical profession while in turn, reflecting existing opinions, attitudes, and cultural values; the analysis also reveals missing perspectives such as the voices of the patients and the public. We highlight how the findings are not merely the dominant ways in which the rise in incidents of violence against doctors is reported and is understood in society, but how media might have shaped the popular discourse around the issue and why. We reflect on what the reportage says about the state of the medical profession and its standing in society in India

Trust and trust relations from the providers’ perspective: the case of the healthcare system in India

Commentators suggest that there is an erosion of trust in the relations between different actors in the health system in India. This paper presents the results of an exploratory study of the situation of providers in an urban setting in western India, the nature of their relations in terms of trust and what influences these relations. The data on relationships of trust were collected through interviews and focus group discussions with key informants, including public and private providers, regulators, managers and societal actors, such as patients/citizens, politicians and the media

The moral experience of illness and its impact on normalisation: Examples from narratives with Punjabi women living with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK

The moral component of living with illness has been neglected in analyses of long-term illness experiences. This paper attempts to fill this gap by exploring the role of the moral experience of illness in mediating the ability of those living with a long-term condition (LTC) to normalise. This is explored through an empirical study of women of Punjabi origin living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the UK. Sixteen informants were recruited through three hospitals in UK cities and interviews conducted and analysed using a Grounded Theory approach. The intersection between moral experience and normalisation, within the broader context of ethnic, gender and socio-economic influences, was evident in the following: disruption of a core lived value (the centrality of family duty), beliefs about illness causation affecting informants’ ‘moral career’, and perceived discrimination in the workplace. The data illustrate the importance of considering an ethnic community’s specific values and beliefs when understanding differences in adapting to LTCs and changing identities

The co-construction and emotion management of hope within psychosis services

There is a growing acknowledgement of the salience of hope for mental health service-users, in influencing care outcomes and recovery. Understandings of the processes through which hopes are co-constructed, alongside specific conceptualisations of experiences of hoping, remain limited however. This qualitative study explored how a range of stakeholders experienced and dealt with uncertainty within three purposively selected psychosis services in southern England. In this article we focus particularly on the co-construction of hope within participants’ narratives and how this emotion work shaped experiences of hoping. In-depth interviews (n=23) with service-users, professionals, managers and other stakeholders were analysed following a phenomenological approach. Hope was spontaneously identified by participants as a fundamental mechanism through which service-users and professionals managed uncertainty when vulnerable. Professionals were influential in shaping users’ hopes, both intentionally and unwittingly, while some professionals also referred to managing their own hopes and those of colleagues. Such management of expectations and emotions enabled motivation and coping amidst uncertainty, for users and professionals, but also entailed difficulties where hope was undermined, exaggerated, or involved tensions between desires and expectations. Whereas hope is usually reflected in the caring studies literature as distinctly positive, our findings point to a more ambivalent understanding of hope, as reflected in the accounts of both service-users and professionals where elevated hopes were described as unrealistic and harmful, to the well-being of professionals as well as of service-users. It is concluded that a greater awareness within care contexts of how hopes are co-constructed by professionals and service-users, explicitly and implicitly, can assist in improving health care and healthcare outcomes

“Informing Efforts Beyond Tailored Promotional Campaigns by Understanding Contextual Factors Shaping Vaccine Hesitancy Among Equity-Deserving Populations in Canada: An Exploratory Qualitative Study”

Background: Vaccine hesitancy exists on a continuum ranging between complete adherence and complete refusal due to doubts or concerns within a heterogeneous group of individuals. Despite widespread acknowledgement of the contextual factors influencing attitudes and beliefs shaping COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, qualitative research with equity-deserving groups, accounting for unique lived experiences, remains a gap in the literature. We aim to identify and begin to understand and document the unique contextual factors shaping hesitancy by equity-deserving groups as it relates to relationships with government and health authorities. Methods: Participants were recruited and interviewed between Aug-Dec 2021. Semi-structured interviews using a convergent interviewing technique were conducted with individuals from the general population, as well as individuals who identify as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit, members of the LGBT2SQ+ community, low-income Canadians, Black Canadians, and newcomers. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by a team of researchers. Memos were written following interviews and used to complement the thematic analysis of the interview data. Themes are presented in the results section. Results: The rationale for hesitancy among equity-deserving groups is consistent with literature documenting hesitancy in the general population. Contextual factors surrounding equity-deserving groups’ attitudes and beliefs, however, are unique and relate to a history of oppression, discrimination, and genocide. We identified factors unique to subgroups; for example, religious or fatalistic beliefs among participant who identify as FNMI, fear associated with lack of testing and speed of vaccines’ production among participants who identify as FNMI, Black, and LGBT2SQ+, distrust of the healthcare system for LGBT2SQ+ and Black Canadians, and distrust of the government and opposition to vaccine mandates for participating who identify as LGBT2SQ+, low-income, FNMI, or Black Canadian. Newcomers stood out as very trusting of the government and accepting of COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions: While our data on vaccine hesitancy largely mirror concerns reported in the vast body of literature citing rationale for COVID-19 hesitancy in high-income countries, the contextual factors identified in our work point to the need for wider systemic change. Our results may be used to support efforts, beyond tailored promotion campaigns, to support the confident acceptance of vaccines for COVID-19 and the acceptance of novel vaccines as future infectious diseases emerge