IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v371y2025ics0277953625002096.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing “the science”: A comparative analysis of COVID-19 testing policy across four Canadian provinces

Author

Listed:
  • Fierlbeck, Katherine
  • Gautier, Lara
  • Usher, Susan
  • Allin, Sara
  • Sriram, Veena
  • Berman, Peter

Abstract

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, scholarship has focused on the intersection of politics and scientific evidence in the development, distribution and uptake of vaccines; border closures; and interventions such as public space closures or masking. But there is a significant gap in the examination of the political choices which informed how discrete jurisdictions chose to undertake and support COVID-19 testing. Using a qualitative, multiple-case study nested in a larger comparative, mixed-method explanatory case study, this research addresses this gap in the literature through a qualitative analysis based on 103 key stakeholder interviews to inform the narrative of testing strategy across four Canadian provinces. Despite the perception that testing is a largely “scientific” process relatively insulated from political choices and pressures, this study shows that jurisdictions had to address an array of variables, often specific to their region, which strongly influenced policy choices in this area. Testing policy, rather than a simple and straightforward clinical exercise, is a highly complex and nuanced process that must take into account a wide variety of non-clinical variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Fierlbeck, Katherine & Gautier, Lara & Usher, Susan & Allin, Sara & Sriram, Veena & Berman, Peter, 2025. "Testing “the science”: A comparative analysis of COVID-19 testing policy across four Canadian provinces," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 371(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:371:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625002096
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117880
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625002096
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117880?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.

    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:371:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625002096. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.