Physicians’ Collective Actions in Response to Government Health Policies: A Scoping Review
- Author:
Hyo-Sun YOU
1
;
Kyung Hye PARK
;
HyeRin ROH
Author Information
- Publication Type:Review Article
- From:Journal of Korean Medical Science 2025;40(6):e90-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.
