Understanding how Canadian citizens and media outlets perceive the healthcare system is important to understanding its development, character, operations, and shortcomings. As such it is essential to explore public opinion and media coverage, as this element seeks to do. In general, this section of the website will analyze and explore how people feel and what they think about this system, and how it is characterized by the media.
Contents:
The 2020 BC General Election won the NDP 57 seats, Liberals 28, and Greens 2.
Angus Reid Institute
Though the high degree of centralization in Canadian healthcare may lead one to believe that public opinion is a relatively unimportant aspect of the topic, this would be wrong. Kelly Bilidook notes an increased public interest in the topic of healthcare and the increased importance of healthcare in the context of elections. Billidooks’ research suggests that media is particularly important when it comes to public opinion, as it has a particularly important role in shaping opinions. However, this evidence is disputed by the research of others. Stuart Soroka’s study “Public Perceptions and Media Coverage of the Canadian Healthcare system” found that most Canadians generally base their opinions of the healthcare system primarily on their own personal experiences, followed by experiences of those close to them, and then finally based on media coverage. Soroka's complete findings are shown below.
****As the landscape of information changes, and Canadians find themselves more connected and heavier users of the internet, some question the role of social media as it relates to care providers, and shaping public opinion. In her piece “how social media can impact healthcare in the right - and wrong - ways”, Heather Mack discusses exactly this. Public opinion of healthcare is closely tied to experiences with a physician, and as such it’s important to understand the newfound challenges associated with new forms of communication. For example, Mack notes that some find that Twitter is a form of communication that poses problems, notably, the character limit. For this reason, the consensus is that longer-form methods of communication seem to be better suited to medical discussion. Facebook live is an example cited in the article. As it has no character limit, physicians are better able to paint a complete picture of what they are discussing. Physicians have often been slow to adopt new forms of communication due to potential legal repercussions. However, some believe social media is different and will allow physicians to paint a “human and trustworthy image”, and help engage patients with others with similar ailments. In short, it is generally understood that if used in the right way, social media can be a safe way to connect patients with other patients and health care providers, and could generally increase public trust and favour of the healthcare system.
****Public opinion regarding the status of Canada’s healthcare system may be more divided than one may believe considering it may initially appear relatively uncontroversial. Stuart Soroka examines public opinion in his study “Public Perceptions and Media Coverage of the Canadian Healthcare system”. He notes that only 41% of respondents felt they approved of the way the government was handling healthcare at the time of the survey in 2009. Furthermore, respondents of the same study have consistently assigned a letter grade of “C” regarding the performance of their provincial government. In 2009, 37% of respondents, the majority, assigned this "C" grade. In 2005 and 2007, the majority of respondents rated governments a "C", but this time in a higher proportion, at 42%. This suggests that perhaps there is popular discontent with provincial governments' handling of healthcare. This is supported by Soroka's finding that Canadians generally tend to rate their healthcare as "fair", but not exceptionally good or poor. Canadians also generally felt that the main issue with the healthcare system was poor management. The vast majority of Canadians held this opinion, with a 15% margin, and have consistently cited this as the main issue since 2005. In summation, Soroka concludes that Canadians are generally getting less optimistic about the state of healthcare in Canada, but remain open to other ways of receiving care and organizing the healthcare system.
****Julia Abelson discusses the determinants and meaning of trust in a healthcare system in her study “What does it mean to trust a healthcare system?”. Abelson notes a general decline in trust in the healthcare system in multiple ways. Some mistrust the government allocation of financial resources, and others feel personally at risk, considering the highly publicized nature of many medical scandals. She similarly notes that the entrepreneurial aspect of the healthcare system and the positioning of a patient as a customer and consumer have also eroded trust in certain places. Abelson finds that people often mistrust the healthcare system due to what the respondents perceived as government intervention with ulterior motives, or intervention by “industry,” such as pharmaceutical companies. Abelson generally determines that for-profit or private ownership tends to decrease public trust. Concerns about false promises or hidden agendas often do the same. Abelson finally characterizes trust among the respondents as being associated with a sense of “comfort” or “security”. Generally, according to the respondents of Abelson’s study, a maximally trustworthy healthcare system would be a publicly owned healthcare system with a transparent agenda, and a robust system designed to hold care providers accountable for mistakes or misdoings.