Round hole, square peg: a discourse analysis of social inequalities and the political legitimization of health technology in Norway.
Discourse analysis
Health
Innovation
Norway
Social inequality
Technology
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Dec 2019
16 Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
04
09
2019
accepted:
29
11
2019
entrez:
18
12
2019
pubmed:
18
12
2019
medline:
14
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As research increasingly investigates the impacts of technological innovations in health on social inequalities, political discourse often promotes development and adoption, limiting an understanding of unintended consequences. This study aimed to investigate national public health policy discourse focusing on innovative health technology and social inequalities, from a Norwegian context. The analysis relies on a perspective inspired by critical discourse analysis using central State documents typically influential in the lawmaking procedure. The results and discussion focus on three major discourse strands: 1) 'technologies discourse' (types of technologies), 2) 'responsibility discourse' (who has responsibility for health and technology), 3) 'legitimization discourse' (how technologies are legitimized). Results suggest that despite an overt political imperative for reducing social inequalities, the Norwegian national discourse gives little attention to the potential for these innovations to unintentionally (re) produce social inequalities. Instead, it is characterized by neoliberal undertones, individualizing and commercializing public health and promoting pro-innovation ideology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
As research increasingly investigates the impacts of technological innovations in health on social inequalities, political discourse often promotes development and adoption, limiting an understanding of unintended consequences. This study aimed to investigate national public health policy discourse focusing on innovative health technology and social inequalities, from a Norwegian context.
METHODS
METHODS
The analysis relies on a perspective inspired by critical discourse analysis using central State documents typically influential in the lawmaking procedure.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The results and discussion focus on three major discourse strands: 1) 'technologies discourse' (types of technologies), 2) 'responsibility discourse' (who has responsibility for health and technology), 3) 'legitimization discourse' (how technologies are legitimized).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest that despite an overt political imperative for reducing social inequalities, the Norwegian national discourse gives little attention to the potential for these innovations to unintentionally (re) produce social inequalities. Instead, it is characterized by neoliberal undertones, individualizing and commercializing public health and promoting pro-innovation ideology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31842823
doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-8023-3
pii: 10.1186/s12889-019-8023-3
pmc: PMC6916046
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1691Références
Sociol Health Illn. 2003;25:97-114
pubmed: 14498932
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Aug 1;25(8):1080-1088
pubmed: 29788380
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013 May;67(5):412-8
pubmed: 23386671
J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51 Suppl:S120-32
pubmed: 20943577
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Oct;215:36-44
pubmed: 30205277
Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Jun;19(2):389-406
pubmed: 22218998
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Aug;75(4):761-9
pubmed: 22475407
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 3;13(4):e0195447
pubmed: 29614114
Lancet. 2008 Nov 8;372(9650):1661-9
pubmed: 18994664
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Apr 27;19(4):e136
pubmed: 28450271
Eur J Public Health. 2009 Oct;19(5):452-3
pubmed: 19587229
Health Promot Int. 2015 Mar;30(1):174-83
pubmed: 25320120
Aust J Public Health. 1992 Jun;16(2):145-50
pubmed: 1391155