Pandemics, policy, and the power of paradigm: will COVID-19 lead to a new scientific revolution?

Fairman, Kathleen A.

doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2022.02.005

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Support for these types of partnerships, and acknowledgement of the challenges to balancing multiple ethical objectives, has been a focus of a number of essays and ethical frameworks. For instance, numerous scholars called on policymakers in the COVID‐19 pandemic to acknowledge the moral implications and ethical trade‐offs of their decisions (Dupont & Galea, 2022; Gostin & Hodge, 2020; Gostin et al., 2020; Rieder et al., 2020; Tomori et al., 2021), and to bring diverse fields of expertise into the fold of decision‐making (Fairman, 2022). Several public health ethics frameworks produced prior to the pandemic (see Childress et al., 2002; Kass, 2001; Marckmann et al., 2015; ten Have et al., 2013) and during the pandemic (for example, Bernstein et al., 2020; Mello & Wang, 2020; Phelan, 2020; Studdert & Hall, 2020) offer approaches to balance these competing considerations.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Staying in the lane’ of public health? Boundary‐work in the roles of state health officials and experts in COVID‐19 policymaking

Esmonde,

Jones,

Johns

et al. 2024

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The state‐level COVID‐19 response in the United States necessitated collaboration between governor' offices, health departments and numerous other departments and outside experts. To gain insight into how health officials and experts contributed to advising on COVID‐19 policies, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with 25 individuals with a health specialisation who were involved in COVID‐19 policymaking, taking place between February and December 2022. We found two diverging understandings of the role of health officials and experts in COVID‐19 policymaking: the role of ‘staying in the lane’ of public health in terms of the information that they collected, their advocacy for policies and their area of expertise and the role of engaging in the balancing of multiple considerations, such as public health, feasibility and competing objectives (such as the economy) in the crafting of pandemic policy. We draw on the concept of boundary‐work to examine how these roles were constructed. We conclude by considering the appropriateness as well as the ethical implications of these two approaches to public health policymaking.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Staying in the lane’ of public health? Boundary‐work in the roles of state health officials and experts in COVID‐19 policymaking

Esmonde,

Jones,

Johns

et al. 2024

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be discussed by bringing together various experts and stakeholders with highquality knowledge in medical science, economics, politics, and other fields, and should serve as an example for future pandemics of emerging infectious diseases for which there is a lack of evidence. 37 The concept of EBPM will play an even more important role in medicine in the future. The evidence and recommendations in the early, middle, and late stages of the COVID-19 pandemic validated in this paper may have provided important information for the implementation of EBPM in the event of a sudden pandemic of emerging infectious diseases in the future.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Policy Making during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

Matsuda

Yoshimura

2023

Prehosp. Disaster med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review was to collect evidence and recommendations for the applicability of the concept of evidence-based policy making (EBPM) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to discuss the implementation of this concept from a medical science perspective. Methods: This study was performed according to the guidelines, checklist, and flow diagram of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020. An electronic literature search was conducted on September 20, 2022 using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases with the following search terms: “evidence based policy making” and “infectious disease.” Study eligibility assessment was performed based on the flow diagram of PRISMA 2020, and risk of bias assessment was performed using The Critical Appraisal Skills Program. Results: Eleven eligible articles were included in this review and divided into three groups as follows: early, middle, and late stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Basics of COVID-19 control were suggested in the early stage. The articles published in the middle stage discussed the importance of the collection and analysis of evidence of COVID-19 from around the world for the establishment of EBPM in the COVID-19 pandemic. The articles published in the late stage discussed the collection of large amounts of high-quality data and the development of methods to analyze them, as well as emerging issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: This study revealed that the concept of EBPM applicable to emerging infectious disease pandemics changed between the early, middle, and late stages of the pandemic. The concept of EBPM will play an important role in medicine in the future.

show abstract

“…These revolutions are so profound that, within healthcare, they can fundamentally change the epistemological foundations of research and healthcare practice (Fairman, 2022) by delineating what can be considered legitimate knowledge (Stevenson & Beech, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Kuhn (1962) proposes an alternative conceptualisation arguing that scientific development is defined by epochs of ongoing creation, crisis and revolution. These revolutions are so profound that, within healthcare, they can fundamentally change the epistemological foundations of research and healthcare practice (Fairman, 2022) by delineating what can be considered legitimate knowledge (Stevenson & Beech, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The biological paradigm of psychosis in crisis: A Kuhnian analysis

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The philosophy of Thomas Kuhn proposes that scientific progress involves periods of crisis and revolution in which previous paradigms are discarded and replaced.Revolutions in how mental health problems are conceptualised have had a substantial impact on the work of mental health nurses. However, despite numerous revolutions within the field of mental health, the biological paradigm has remained largely dominant within western healthcare, especially in orientating the understanding and treatment of psychosis. This paper utilises concepts drawn from the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn to explore the impact of what Kuhn terms 'anomalies' within the dominant biological paradigm: the anomaly of the meaningful utterance, the anomaly of complex aetiology and taxonomy and the anomaly of pharmacological inefficacy in recovery. The paper argues that the biological paradigm for understanding psychosis is in crisis and explores the implications for mental health nursing.

show abstract

Pandemics, policy, and the power of paradigm: will COVID-19 lead to a new scientific revolution?

Cited by 5 publications

References 50 publications

‘Staying in the lane’ of public health? Boundary‐work in the roles of state health officials and experts in COVID‐19 policymaking

‘Staying in the lane’ of public health? Boundary‐work in the roles of state health officials and experts in COVID‐19 policymaking

Evidence-Based Policy Making during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

The biological paradigm of psychosis in crisis: A Kuhnian analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About