Readings & Audiovisual

Vaccines are in the news every day as some countries struggle to improve vaccination rates and others struggle to access vaccines. A social science approach is needed to further explore what actions can be taken to optimize vaccine acceptance during a disease outbreak, with immediate lessons for the COVID-19 pandemic. Social science can highlight histories of oppression, political-economic contexts that exacerbate inequality, and how communities experience injustice with implications for how individuals view, trust, and take up vaccines. In this Epicast, we explore social science perspectives on vaccine deployment through the lens of Project AViD: Anthropological Exploration of Facilitators and Barriers to Vaccine Deployment and Administration During Disease Outbreaks.

In January 2021, the WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that “we now face the real danger that even as vaccines bring hope to some, they become another brick in the wall of inequality between the world’s haves and have-nots” and that “the world is on the brink of a catastrophic moral failure” because of this.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) arrived in the United Kingdom (UK) in February 2020, placing an unprecedented burden on the National Health Service (NHS). Literature from past epidemics and the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of using a gender lens when considering policy, experiences, and impacts of the disease. Researchers are increasingly examining the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs), yet there is a dearth of research considering how gender shapes HCWs’ personal experiences. As the majority of HCWs in the UK and worldwide are women, research that investigates gender and focuses on women’s experiences is urgently needed. We conducted an analysis of 41 qualitative interviews with HCWs in the British NHS during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020. Our findings demonstrate that gender is significant when understanding the experiences of HCWs during COVID-19 as it illuminates ingrained inequalities and asymmetrical power relations, gendered organizational structures and norms, and individual gendered bodies that interact to shape experiences of healthcare workers. These findings point to important steps to improve gender equality, the wellbeing of healthcare workers, and the overall strength of the NHS.

Healthcare workers have emerged as a vulnerable population group during COVID-19, and securing supply chains of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been identified as a critical issue to protect healthcare workers and to prevent health system overwhelm. While securing PPE is a complex logistical challenge facing many countries, it is vital to recognise the social and health systems issues that structure the differential degrees of risk faced by various subgroups of healthcare workers. As an illustrative case study, the author identifies two key social factors that are likely to face the degrees of risk faced by midwives in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia, if and when COVID-19 takes hold in Indonesia. Healthcare workers in both high and low resource-settings globally are likely to face particular risks and vulnerabilities that are shaped by localized social and health systems factors. Qualitative social and health systems research can and should be utilized proactively in order to protect healthcare workers, to inform more equitable program design, and to create a foundation for health equity within the future of global health that emerges from the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented for the amount of data which is produced daily about the disease and for controversies over evidence, predictions and ‘misinformation’.

This paper investigates the genealogy of social science research into antimicrobial resistance (AMR) by piecing together the bibliometric characteristics of this branch of research. Drawing on the Web of Science as the primary database, the analysis shows that while academic interest in AMR has increased substantially over the last few years, social science research continues to constitute a negligible share of total academic contributions. More in-depth network analysis of citations and bibliometric couplings suggests how the impact of social science research on the scientific discourse on AMR is both peripheral and spread thin. We conclude that this limited social science engagement is puzzling considering the clear academic and practical demand and the many existing interdisciplinary outlets. [Antimicrobial resistance, Health policy, Social science, Bibliometrics, Network analysis]

The purpose of this article is to provide an understanding of how different countries formulate and regulate antibiotic use in animals raised for human consumption. A comparative case study was undertaken, analysing historical documents from the 1950s to the 1990s from the UK, the first country to produce a scientific report on the public health risks of agricultural antibiotic use; and Sweden, the first country to produce legislation on the growth promotor use of antibiotics in food animals. Sheila Jasanoff's concepts of ‘co‐production’ and ‘political cultures’ have been used to explore how both countries used different styles of scientific reasoning and justification of the risks of agricultural antibiotic use. It will be argued that national dynamics between policy, science and public knowledges co‐produced different risk classifications and patterns of agricultural antibiotic use between both countries. UK's political culture used ‘expert committees’ to remove the issue from public debate and to inform agricultural antibiotic policies. In contrast, the Swedish ‘consensus‐oriented’ political culture made concerns related to agricultural antibiotic use into a cooperative debate that included multiple discourses. Understanding how national policies, science and public knowledges interact with the risks related to agricultural antibiotic use can provide valuable insights in understanding and addressing countries agricultural use of antibiotics.

Durant l’épidémie d’Ebola de 2014-2016, les anthropologues se sont engagés dans la riposte de trois manières : en tant qu’experts d’Ebola, médiateurs culturels entre populations et soignants, et chercheurs. L’article propose une esquisse de bilan de leurs approches et contributions, et discute les enjeux de cet engagement sur la base d’une revue de la littérature, d’études de cas et de débats lors de colloques. Les résultats de recherches en anthropologie présentés dans l’article concernent quatre thèmes : les contextes épidémiologiques de la transmission ; l’interprétation culturelle de la maladie et les réponses sociales ; la construction sociale de l’expérience des acteurs ; l’analyse critique des interventions de santé publique. Outre des contributions éclairantes en particulier sur les contextes sociopolitiques et leurs interfaces avec les mesures de santé publique globales, les anthropologues ont expérimenté des formes de communication de leurs résultats accessibles pour les acteurs de santé publique. Cependant, ces formes d’engagement hétérogènes soulèvent quelques questions, notamment lorsqu’elles reflètent des interprétations de l’anthropologie par ceux qui la sollicitent ou qui s’en revendiquent lui déniant toute portée critique ou réflexive, ou lorsqu’elles la confondent avec une intervention sociale. Néanmoins, les acquis de la recherche anthropologique sont importants, et pourraient l’être davantage si les réseaux transnationaux mis en place par les chercheurs pour analyser les dimensions sociopolitiques, économiques et bio-culturelles des épidémies émergentes pouvaient être pérennisés pour « préparer » la riposte à de futures crises sanitaires. [Afrique de l’Ouest; Ebola; Anthropologie; Épidémie; Sciences sociales]