IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v296y2022ics0277953622001149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Professional regulation, profession-state relations and the pandemic response: Australia, Canada, and the UK compared

Author

Listed:
  • Adams, Tracey L.
  • Wannamaker, Kaitlin

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic provoked a surge in demand for health services. To help meet this demand, governments and health profession regulators implemented regulatory policy change to enhance professional availability and flexibility. Some nations may have been better positioned to make such changes due to their systems of healthcare profession regulation. More specifically, countries like Australia and the United Kingdom with their national regulatory structures could be more adaptable than Canada with its provincial system of regulation. To determine if this is the case, and guided by Abbott's (1988, 2005) ecological approach, we conducted a policy analysis. We find few differences in regulatory policy changes in terms of what was done, with the exception of scope of practice changes, which were implemented in Canadian provinces, but were not necessary in Australia and the United Kingdom. Instead, in the latter two countries practitioners were asked to bear responsibility for their own scopes. Additional content analysis of medical journals explored what professionals thought about policy responses, finding that Australian professionals were more positive than others. Moreover, government responses were regarded more favourably when they were perceived to be collaborative. Although there is little evidence that one regulatory system is better than another in facilitating crisis responses, regulatory structures do shape the nature of regulatory policy change.

Suggested Citation

  • Adams, Tracey L. & Wannamaker, Kaitlin, 2022. "Professional regulation, profession-state relations and the pandemic response: Australia, Canada, and the UK compared," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:296:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622001149
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622001149
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114808?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malcolm, Dominic & Scott, Andrea, 2011. "Professional relations in sport healthcare: Workplace responses to organisational change," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 513-520, February.
    2. Kelner, Merrijoy & Wellman, Beverly & Boon, Heather & Welsh, Sandy, 2004. "Responses of established healthcare to the professionalization of complementary and alternative medicine in Ontario," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 915-930, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tovey, P. & Broom, Alex, 2007. "Oncologists' and specialist cancer nurses' approaches to complementary and alternative medicine and their impact on patient action," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2550-2564, June.
    2. Kelner, Merrijoy & Wellman, Beverly & Welsh, Sandy & Boon, Heather, 2006. "How far can complementary and alternative medicine go? The case of chiropractic and homeopathy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(10), pages 2617-2627, November.
    3. Wahlberg, Ayo, 2007. "A quackery with a difference--New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2307-2316, December.
    4. Isabel Rodríguez-Costa & Ma Dolores González-Rivera & Catherine Ortega & Joana-Marina Llabrés-Mateu & María Blanco-Morales & Vanesa Abuín-Porras & Belén Díaz-Pulido, 2020. "Professional and Personal Physical Therapist Development through Service Learning in Collaboration with a Prisoner Reinsertion Program: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Timmons, Edward & Hockenberry, Jason & Piette Durrance, Christine, 2016. "More Battles among Licensed Occupations: Estimating the Effects of Scope of Practice and Direct Access on the Chiropractic, Physical Therapist, and Physician Labor Market," Annals of Computational Economics, George Mason University, Mercatus Center, September.
    6. Boateng, Godfred O. & Adams, Tracey L., 2016. "“Drop dead … I need your job”: An exploratory study of intra-professional conflict amongst nurses in two Ontario cities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 35-42.
    7. Chung, Vincent C.H. & Hillier, Sheila & Lau, Chun Hong & Wong, Samuel Y.S. & Yeoh, Eng Kiong & Griffiths, Sian M., 2011. "Referral to and attitude towards traditional Chinese medicine amongst western medical doctors in postcolonial Hong Kong," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 247-255, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:296:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622001149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.