See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Aims: The study assessed how the Canadian print media represented essential healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the controversial decision to include liquor and cannabis stores in essential services lists.
Methods: Quantitative content analysis of sixty-seven articles published in major Canadian English language newspapers between March 23 and April 1, 2020. Articles were analyzed and coded by two raters. Ratings were analyzed in SPSS.
Results and Discussion: Few articles in the sample discussed essential healthcare services and the inclusion of liquor and cannabis stores in essential services lists. Majority of the articles that discussed both topics framed the discussion positively and consistently with current knowledge and evidence.
Conclusion: Canadian print media representations of essential healthcare services and associated public debate are largely descriptive and, therefore, fail to engage critically with or advance public understanding of an important health policy issue.
Keywords
COVID-19, public health, public health policy, media representations of health, public understanding of health, essential services, liquor and cannabis sales
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 10 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 03 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 03 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 03 Jan, 2021
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 21 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 14 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Nov, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 30 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 Nov, 2020
Version 1
Posted 09 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 15 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 08 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 01 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 31 May, 2020
First submitted
On 29 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 10 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 03 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 03 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 03 Jan, 2021
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 21 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 14 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Nov, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 30 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 Nov, 2020
Version 1
Posted 09 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 15 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 08 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 01 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 31 May, 2020
First submitted
On 29 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Aims: The study assessed how the Canadian print media represented essential healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the controversial decision to include liquor and cannabis stores in essential services lists.
Methods: Quantitative content analysis of sixty-seven articles published in major Canadian English language newspapers between March 23 and April 1, 2020. Articles were analyzed and coded by two raters. Ratings were analyzed in SPSS.
Results and Discussion: Few articles in the sample discussed essential healthcare services and the inclusion of liquor and cannabis stores in essential services lists. Majority of the articles that discussed both topics framed the discussion positively and consistently with current knowledge and evidence.
Conclusion: Canadian print media representations of essential healthcare services and associated public debate are largely descriptive and, therefore, fail to engage critically with or advance public understanding of an important health policy issue.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...