Implementing social distancing policy measures in the battle against the coronavirus: protocol of a comparative study of Denmark and Sweden.
Comparative research
Evidence
Expert advice
Implementation
Policy
Social distancing
Journal
Implementation science communications
ISSN: 2662-2211
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101764360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
05
08
2020
accepted:
18
08
2020
entrez:
24
9
2020
pubmed:
25
9
2020
medline:
25
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Social distancing policies to ensure physical distance between people have become a crucial strategy in the battle against the spread of the coronavirus. The aim of this project is to analyze and compare social distancing policies implemented in Denmark and Sweden in 2020. Despite many similarities between the two countries, their response to the coronavirus pandemic differed markedly. Whereas authorities in Denmark initiated mandatory regulations and many severe restrictions, Swedish authorities predominantly promoted voluntary recommendations. The project is an interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers in Denmark and Sweden with different disciplinary backgrounds. The project is based on a comparative analysis, an approach that attempts to reach conclusions beyond single cases and to explain differences and similarities between objects of analysis and relations between objects against the backdrop of their contextual conditions. Data will be gathered by means of document analysis, qualitative interviews, and a questionnaire survey to address three research questions: (1) What social distancing policies regarding the coronavirus have been formulated and implemented, who are the policymakers behind the policy measures, which implementers are expected to implement the measures, and who are the targets that the measures ultimately seek to influence? (2) How have the social distancing policies and policy measures been justified, and what types of knowledge form the basis for the measures? and (3) What are the differences and similarities in citizens' perceptions of acceptability and compliance with social distancing policy measures in relation to the coronavirus? To create a structure for addressing the three research questions, the project applies a theoretical framework informed by the policy and implementation science literatures. The framework consists of five interdependent domains that have an impact on policy implementation: (1) policymakers, (2) policy characteristics, (3) implementers, (4) targets, and (5) policy environment. Details of the framework are provided in the article.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Social distancing policies to ensure physical distance between people have become a crucial strategy in the battle against the spread of the coronavirus. The aim of this project is to analyze and compare social distancing policies implemented in Denmark and Sweden in 2020. Despite many similarities between the two countries, their response to the coronavirus pandemic differed markedly. Whereas authorities in Denmark initiated mandatory regulations and many severe restrictions, Swedish authorities predominantly promoted voluntary recommendations.
METHODS
METHODS
The project is an interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers in Denmark and Sweden with different disciplinary backgrounds. The project is based on a comparative analysis, an approach that attempts to reach conclusions beyond single cases and to explain differences and similarities between objects of analysis and relations between objects against the backdrop of their contextual conditions. Data will be gathered by means of document analysis, qualitative interviews, and a questionnaire survey to address three research questions: (1) What social distancing policies regarding the coronavirus have been formulated and implemented, who are the policymakers behind the policy measures, which implementers are expected to implement the measures, and who are the targets that the measures ultimately seek to influence? (2) How have the social distancing policies and policy measures been justified, and what types of knowledge form the basis for the measures? and (3) What are the differences and similarities in citizens' perceptions of acceptability and compliance with social distancing policy measures in relation to the coronavirus?
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
To create a structure for addressing the three research questions, the project applies a theoretical framework informed by the policy and implementation science literatures. The framework consists of five interdependent domains that have an impact on policy implementation: (1) policymakers, (2) policy characteristics, (3) implementers, (4) targets, and (5) policy environment. Details of the framework are provided in the article.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32968739
doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00065-x
pii: 65
pmc: PMC7503049
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
77Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 May;26(5):976-984
pubmed: 32027585
Epidemiol Infect. 2009 Oct;137(10):1369-76
pubmed: 19351434
BMC Public Health. 2010 Dec 21;10:778
pubmed: 21176155
Emerg Infect Dis. 2012 May;18(5):758-66
pubmed: 22515989
Am J Bioeth. 2009 Nov;9(11):4-14
pubmed: 19882444
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Mar 25;19(1):189
pubmed: 30909897
J Theor Biol. 2010 Jul 21;265(2):136-50
pubmed: 20382168
Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Aug;87(8):588-94
pubmed: 19705008
BMC Infect Dis. 2011 Sep 30;11:257
pubmed: 21958428
Public Health Rep. 2010 Nov-Dec;125(6):851-9
pubmed: 21121230
PLoS Med. 2005 Jul;2(7):e166
pubmed: 15913387
Perspect Biol Med. 2009 Spring;52(2):304-18
pubmed: 19395827
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Jan 1;52 Suppl 1:S146-53
pubmed: 21342887
Paediatr Respir Rev. 2015 Mar;16(2):119-26
pubmed: 24630149
Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10:53
pubmed: 25895742
Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 10;8:63
pubmed: 23758952
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Feb 7;156(3):173-81
pubmed: 22312137
Salud Publica Mex. 2011 Jan-Feb;53(1):40-7
pubmed: 21340139
PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e24706
pubmed: 22043275
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 06;(7):CD006207
pubmed: 21735402
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009 Dec;3 Suppl 2:S185-92
pubmed: 19675459
Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Aug;9(8):473-81
pubmed: 19628172
Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Feb;24(2):105-12
pubmed: 14769454
Br J Sports Med. 2010 Jun;44(7):528-32
pubmed: 20519257
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Apr 1;90(4):264-71
pubmed: 22511822
Scand J Infect Dis. 2012 Apr;44(4):289-96
pubmed: 22106922
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44
pubmed: 24193818
Euro Surveill. 2009 Nov 05;14(44):
pubmed: 19941778
Emerg Infect Dis. 2010 Feb;16(2):212-8
pubmed: 20113549