Network dynamics in public health advisory systems: A comparative analysis of scientific advice for COVID‐19 in Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland

Governance Pub Date : 2024-07-20 DOI:10.1111/gove.12885
Antoine Lemor, Éric Montpetit, Shoghig Téhinian, Clarisse Ven Belleghem, Steven Eichenberger, PerOla Öberg, Frédéric Varone, David Aubin, Jean‐Louis Denis
{"title":"Network dynamics in public health advisory systems: A comparative analysis of scientific advice for COVID‐19 in Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland","authors":"Antoine Lemor, Éric Montpetit, Shoghig Téhinian, Clarisse Ven Belleghem, Steven Eichenberger, PerOla Öberg, Frédéric Varone, David Aubin, Jean‐Louis Denis","doi":"10.1111/gove.12885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study presents a dual‐method approach to systematically analyze public health advisory networks during the COVID‐19 pandemic across four jurisdictions: Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland. Using network analysis inspired by egocentric analysis and a subsystems approach adapted to public health, the research investigates network structures and their openness to new actors and ideas. The findings reveal significant variations in network configurations, with differences in density, centralization, and the role of central actors. The study also uncovers a relation between network openness and its structural attributes, highlighting the impact of network composition on the flow and control of expert advice. These insights into public health advisory networks contribute to understanding the interface between scientific advice and policymaking, emphasizing the importance of network characteristics in shaping the influence of expert advisors. The article underscores the relevance of systematic network descriptions in public policy, offering reflections on expert accountability, information diversity, and the broader implications for democratic governance.","PeriodicalId":501138,"journal":{"name":"Governance","volume":"138 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study presents a dual‐method approach to systematically analyze public health advisory networks during the COVID‐19 pandemic across four jurisdictions: Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland. Using network analysis inspired by egocentric analysis and a subsystems approach adapted to public health, the research investigates network structures and their openness to new actors and ideas. The findings reveal significant variations in network configurations, with differences in density, centralization, and the role of central actors. The study also uncovers a relation between network openness and its structural attributes, highlighting the impact of network composition on the flow and control of expert advice. These insights into public health advisory networks contribute to understanding the interface between scientific advice and policymaking, emphasizing the importance of network characteristics in shaping the influence of expert advisors. The article underscores the relevance of systematic network descriptions in public policy, offering reflections on expert accountability, information diversity, and the broader implications for democratic governance.
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
公共卫生咨询系统的网络动态:比利时、魁北克、瑞典和瑞士的 COVID-19 科学建议比较分析
本研究采用双重方法对 COVID-19 大流行期间四个辖区的公共卫生咨询网络进行了系统分析:比利时、魁北克、瑞典和瑞士。该研究利用受自我中心分析启发的网络分析和适用于公共卫生的子系统方法,调查了网络结构及其对新参与者和新想法的开放性。研究结果揭示了网络结构的显著差异,在密度、集中化和中心参与者的作用方面都存在差异。研究还发现了网络开放性与其结构属性之间的关系,突出了网络构成对专家建议的流动和控制的影响。对公共卫生咨询网络的这些见解有助于理解科学建议与政策制定之间的关系,强调了网络特征在塑造专家顾问影响力方面的重要性。文章强调了公共政策中系统网络描述的相关性,对专家问责制、信息多样性以及民主治理的广泛影响进行了思考。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The political economy of open contracting reforms in low‐ and middle‐income countries In court we trust? Political affinity and citizen's attitudes toward court's decisions A red flag for public goods? The correlates of civil society restrictions Drivers of transnational administrative coordination on super‐wicked policy issues: The role of institutional homophily European union funding of interest groups: Reassessing the balancing function and the promotion of good organizational practices
×
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