Health systems in the COVID-19 crises: Comparative patterns of NHS satisfaction and preferences for public health action in Scotland and England

IF 2.6 2区 社会学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Social Policy & Administration Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI:10.1111/spol.13015
Christopher Deeming
{"title":"Health systems in the COVID-19 crises: Comparative patterns of NHS satisfaction and preferences for public health action in Scotland and England","authors":"Christopher Deeming","doi":"10.1111/spol.13015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is often claimed Scotland is more social democratic in outlook compared to England, if this is the case then we might expect to find differences in public attitudes towards health and social justice, reflecting the growing health policy divergence between the two nations. Comparative attitudes towards healthcare in Scotland and England are worthy of close scrutiny here, given the different reform trajectories, with the running of the Scottish NHS based on professionalism and the English NHS structure built on market-based principles. The Scottish Government also implemented stricter lockdown restrictions compared to the UK Government in England. However, the extent to which the policy responses to the pandemic reflect different attitudes towards collective public health action in the two countries remains under-researched. In this article, public attitudes towards health in Scotland are compared with those in England. The comparative analysis relies primarily on survey data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) module on health and healthcare. This survey was fielded in Scotland and England in the autumn of 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, Scotland is more solidaristic or ‘social democratic’ than England on key issues relating to public health action and social justice. The findings reveal some commonalities between the nations, confidence in the NHS during the pandemic, and a willingness to improve the health service via higher taxes for example, but also important differences in attitudes and preferences for state action exist that help set the scene for greater policy divergence in the UK.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Policy & Administration","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is often claimed Scotland is more social democratic in outlook compared to England, if this is the case then we might expect to find differences in public attitudes towards health and social justice, reflecting the growing health policy divergence between the two nations. Comparative attitudes towards healthcare in Scotland and England are worthy of close scrutiny here, given the different reform trajectories, with the running of the Scottish NHS based on professionalism and the English NHS structure built on market-based principles. The Scottish Government also implemented stricter lockdown restrictions compared to the UK Government in England. However, the extent to which the policy responses to the pandemic reflect different attitudes towards collective public health action in the two countries remains under-researched. In this article, public attitudes towards health in Scotland are compared with those in England. The comparative analysis relies primarily on survey data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) module on health and healthcare. This survey was fielded in Scotland and England in the autumn of 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, Scotland is more solidaristic or ‘social democratic’ than England on key issues relating to public health action and social justice. The findings reveal some commonalities between the nations, confidence in the NHS during the pandemic, and a willingness to improve the health service via higher taxes for example, but also important differences in attitudes and preferences for state action exist that help set the scene for greater policy divergence in the UK.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19 危机中的卫生系统:苏格兰和英格兰国家医疗服务系统满意度和公共卫生行动偏好的比较模式
人们常说苏格兰的社会民主观念比英格兰更强,如果真是这样的话,我们可能会发现公众对健康和社会公正的态度有所不同,这也反映出两个国家在医疗政策上的分歧越来越大。鉴于苏格兰和英格兰的改革轨迹不同,苏格兰国家医疗服务体系的运行以专业化为基础,而英格兰国家医疗服务体系的结构则建立在以市场为基础的原则之上,因此苏格兰和英格兰对医疗服务的态度比较值得仔细研究。与英格兰的英国政府相比,苏格兰政府也实施了更严格的封锁限制。然而,对大流行病的政策反应在多大程度上反映了两国对集体公共卫生行动的不同态度,这方面的研究仍然不足。本文比较了苏格兰和英格兰公众对健康的态度。比较分析主要依赖于国际社会调查计划 (ISSP) 健康与医疗保健模块的调查数据。这项调查于 2021 年秋季 COVID-19 大流行期间在苏格兰和英格兰进行。总体而言,在与公共卫生行动和社会公正相关的关键问题上,苏格兰比英格兰更团结或更 "社会民主"。调查结果揭示了两国之间的一些共同点,例如在大流行病期间对国家医疗服务体系的信心,以及通过提高税收来改善医疗服务的意愿,但在对国家行动的态度和偏好方面也存在重要差异,这有助于为英国更大的政策分歧创造条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Social Policy & Administration is the longest established journal in its field. Whilst remaining faithful to its tradition in academic excellence, the journal also seeks to engender debate about topical and controversial issues. Typical numbers contain papers clustered around a theme. The journal is international in scope. Quality contributions are received from scholars world-wide and cover social policy issues not only in Europe but in the USA, Canada, Australia and Asia Pacific.
期刊最新文献
The Use and Impact of Well‐Being Metrics on Policymaking: Developers' and Users' Perspectives in Scotland and Italy Practising Resilience: Lived Experience, Agency and Responses to the Cost‐of‐Living Crisis Profiles Among Women Without a Paid Job and Social Benefits: An Intersectional Perspective Using Dutch Population Register Data Work inclusion of marginalised groups in a troubled city district—How can active labour market policies improve? No welfare without workfare? Revisiting varieties of minimum income schemes in Europe (2008–2022)
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1