Search

In order to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers around the globe have increasingly invested in digital health technologies to support the 'test, track and trace' approach of containing the spread of the novel coronavirus. These technologies include mobile 'contact tracing' applications (apps), which can trace individuals likely to have come into contact with those who have reported symptoms or tested positive for the virus and request that they self-isolate. This paper takes a critical public health perspective that advocates for 'genuine participation' in public health interventions and emphasises the need to take citizen's knowledge into account during public health decision-making. In doing so, it presents and discusses the findings of a UK interview study that explored public views on the possibility of using a COVID-19 contact-tracing app public health intervention at the time the United Kingdom (UK) Government announced their decision to develop such a technology. Findings illustrated interviewees' range and degree of understandings, misconceptions, and concerns about the possibility of using an app. In particular, concerns about privacy and surveillance predominated. Interviewees associated these concerns much more broadly than health by identifying with pre-existent British national narratives associated with individual liberty and autonomy. In extending and contributing to ongoing sociological research with public health, we argue that understanding and responding to these matters is vital, and that our findings demonstrate the need for a forward-looking, anticipatory strategy for public engagement as part of the responsible innovation of the COVID-19 contact-tracing app in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws on UK data from an international, comparative project involving eight countries. The study examined how social workers' conceptions and definitions of family impact on the way they engage with complex families, and how social policies that frame social work context impact on the way social workers engage with families. Focus groups were held in which social workers from four service areas (child welfare, addictions, mental health and migration) were asked to discuss a case vignette. Several factors were embedded in the vignette to represent a realistic situation a social worker may come across in their day-to-day work. Social workers clearly identified the complexity of the family's situation in terms of the range of issues identified and candidate 'causes'. However, typical first responses were institutional, looking for triggers that would signify certainty about their, or other agencies' involvement. This resulted in a complicated story, through which the family was disaggregated into individual problem-service categories. This paper argues that understanding these processes and their consequences is critical for exploring the ways in which we might develop alternative, supportive professional responses with families with complex needs. It also demonstrates how organisational systems manifest themselves in everyday reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Undergoing an amputation is a life-altering experience that can involve a protracted and intensive period of care from a range of healthcare professionals. Amputation care within the NHS has historically been criticised. Here we seek to understand how patients are experiencing care by exploring their stories and identifying features of both high- and low-quality care. We analysed patient stories posted on the patient feedback site Care Opinion during the period 2018–2020 to examine how amputee patients (and their families) experience NHS care. Using thematic analysis, we identified four key themes. We found that patients' stories of undergoing an amputation as posted on Care Opinion give overwhelmingly positive feedback on their experiences. Patients report feeling well-supported by empathetic staff, and that the outcomes, in terms of quality of life and restoration of mobility, are beneficial. Time was a common feature within the posts we examined and negative experiences of care often related to untimeliness in a variety of ways. Care Opinion provides a useful and accessible resource for understanding how patients experience amputation care; analysis of stories posted there provides preliminary ideas of the features of "good care" from a patient-centred perspective. Patients undergoing amputations view professionalism of staff as important for good care. Timeliness is important to patients in seeing care in positive terms, ensuring patients are supported in their care during and after amputation in a timely manner is therefore important for achieving good rehabilitation care. Rehabilitation and related services supporting patients who have undergone amputations could usefully patient feedback sites as a means for further understanding the experiences of their patients and for improving services where necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To explore how policy actors attempted to deliberately frame public debate around alcohol minimum unit pricing (MUP) in the UK by comparing and contrasting their constructions of the policy in public (newspapers), semi-public (evidence submissions) and private (interviews). Methods: Content analysis was conducted on articles published in ten national newspapers between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2012. Newsprint data were contrasted with alcohol policy documents, evidence submissions to the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee and 36 confidential interviews with policy stakeholders (academics, advocates, industry representatives, politicians and civil servants). Findings: A range of policy actors exerted influence both directly (through Parliamentary institutions and political representatives) and indirectly through the mass media. Policy actors were acutely aware of mass media's importance in shaping public opinion and used it tactically to influence policy. They often framed messages in subtly different ways, depending on target audiences. In general, newspapers presented the policy debate in a 'balanced' way, but this arguably over-represented hostile perspective and suggested greater disagreement around the evidence base than is the case. Conclusions: The roles of policy actors vary between public and policy spheres, and how messages are communicated in policy debates depends on perceived strategic advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]