ArticleGlobalization and health2022
Pandemic preparedness systems and diverging COVID-19 responses within similar public health regimes: a comparative study of expert perceptions of pandemic response in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
Article in Globalization and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revealing institutional vulnerabilities in Nordic health systems through multidimensional scaling of COVID-19 mortality data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Innovative public strategies in response to COVID-19: A review of practices from China.Health care science · 2024Review
- Singapore's COVID-19 crisis decision-making through centralization, legitimacy, and agility: an empirical analysis.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Governance and Public Health Decision-Making During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review.Public health reviews · 2024Article
- Article
- Barriers to and Facilitators of the Implementation of Digital Mental Health Interventions as Perceived by Primary Care Decision Makers: Content Analysis of Structured Open-Ended Survey Data.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Dynamic variations in and prediction of COVID-19 with omicron in the four first-tier cities of mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Pandemic impacts on public transport safety and stress perceptions in Nordic cities.Transportation research. Part D, Transport and environment · 2023Article
- Time-series COVID-19 policymaker analysis of the UAE, Taiwan, New Zealand, Japan and Hungary.Dialogues in health · 2022Article
- The making of a Swedish strategy: How organizational culture shaped the Public Health Agency's pandemic response.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2022Article
- Global law, policy, and governance for effective prevention and control of COVID-19: A comparative analysis of the law and policy of Pakistan, China, and Russia.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational responses to the COVID-19 pandemic depend on national preparedness systems that must be understood as components of global public health emergency preparedness systems, governed and coordinated through the World Health Organization's 2005 International Health Regulations. The pandemic has raised the question of why countries belonging to similar public health regimes, coordinated through the same global system, responded differently to the same threat. Comparing the responses of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, countries with similar public health regimes, the paper investigates to what degree national differences in COVID-19 policy response reflect significant differences in the policy preferences of national expert groups.
resultsWe employ a structured case comparison of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden to analyze their' politico-administrative pandemic preparedness systems and policy responses during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We use the results of an interdisciplinary expert survey completed in 2020 to analyze expert perceptions in two ways. First, we analyze expert perceptions of COVID-19 responses while controlling for national COVID-19 trajectories and experts' characteristics. Second, we analyze the distribution and effect of dominant global expert-held ideas across countries, showing the importance of dominant ideas for experts' perceptions and preferences for COVID-19 response.
conclusionThe study finds no evidence indicating that COVID-19 policy variation between the most similar cases of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are the result of differences in the policy preferences of national expert groups. Instead, our study highlights the importance of other factors than cross-national expert dissensus for explaining variation in pandemic response such as the politico-administrative organization of pandemic preparedness systems. Further, we find that expert support for dominant ideas such as a 'focused protection strategy' is associated with consistent policy preferences across locational, disciplinary, and geographic affiliations. Recognition of the latter should be a part of future discussions about how global ideas of pandemic preparedness are diffused transnationally and embedded in national politico-administrative systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.