Healthcare is a knowledge-intensive field. A significant quantum of extremely vital and viable healthcare knowledge exists in a tacit form, yet due to various operational and technical reasons such healthcare knowledge is not entirely utilized and put into professional practice. The strong increase in expert work and knowledge-intensive fields make examining the topic timely and hypothetically interesting.The most significant contribution of this study is the increase in understanding, as well as, tacit healthcare knowledge sharing amongst physicians and clinicians with the type of collaborative tools and technologies they have at their disposal. Collaborative tools and technologies help employees of an organization work closely with their colleagues, partner organization and other volunteers as tacit healthcare knowledge sharing among clinicians such as sharing of best practices, tips and tricks, inter professional collaborative networking, clinical experiences and skills are known to have a significant impact on the quality of medical diagnosis and decisions.This paper posits that collaboration tools and technologies can provide new opportunities for tacit healthcare knowledge sharing amongst health-experts, and demonstrates this by presenting findings from a review of relevant literature and a survey conducted with Medical Doctors who have moderate to high interaction with collaborative tools and technologies in the healthcare industry. Semi-structure interviews were conducted with health-experts (Medical Doctors and clinicians) of Akademiska Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. Final thematic analysis unveiled six themes as potential contributors of collaborative tools and technologies in facilitating tacit healthcare knowledge sharing among clinicians. The newly developed themes are described and interpreted briefly; extensive literature review has been carried out to relate the emerged themes with the literatures and part of interview participant responses are supported as well. Finally this research suggests further empirical studies shall be conducted to acknowledge this study.

The covid-19 pandemic in Sweden is characterized by high uncertainty and risk. Health experts and authorities play a central part in informing and guiding the public’s responses to a pandemic. But to have the right to operate, an organization’s legitimacy is important. How does a health expert authority get people to follow the guidelines to ensure public health efforts success in the covid-19 pandemic?   This case study focused on Folkhälsomyndigheten’s perceived legitimacy by young adults in Sweden during the covid-19 pandemic, by understanding if Folkhälsomyndigheten was perceived as a legitimate expert and how their legitimacy was constituted through their conveying of risk. Hence, we aimed to contribute to health and crisis communication by adopting a public-centered approach to the constitution of legitimacy.   The empirical data was collected through three online focus group interviews with 20-24-year-olds. Suchman’s legitimacy theory and Giddens’s notion of the postindustrial risk society was used the analyze the results. Through a thematic analysis, we discovered a total of 12 themes distributed over 3 dimensions, showing that Folkhälsomyndigheten’s legitimacy was constituted on the premises of pragmatic legitimacy, based on the self-interest of the public. We could conclude that Folkhälsomyndigheten was viewed as a legitimate expert because of their status as an institutionalized health authority, and that the legitimacy of their expert position role was grounded in a democratic mindset. Folkhälsomyndigheten’s legitimacy was, through procedures, representatives, and human attributes, constituted by organizing the unstable situation for the young adults to gain a feeling of stability.

<p>In today’s interconnected world, public health crises like COVID-19 have a widespread impact, transcending national borders, causing economic upheaval, the loss of trillions of dollars from the gross domestic product (GDP), and significant disruptions to health systems, and forcing millions of individuals into poverty. While countries may differ in their responses to these crises, their shared objective is to mitigate the damage and ultimately bring an end to the outbreak. Public health experts play a crucial role in these efforts, utilizing rhetorical strategies to effectively communicate with the public about the pandemic. Notably, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci in the United States and Dr. Wenhong Zhang in China emerged as revered figures, leading public health experts, and adept communicators in addressing the risks posed by the pandemic in their respective countries. This dissertation investigates the rhetorical practices of Dr. Zhang and Dr. Fauci in their communications about the pandemic to their respective publics. Employing a case study approach, contextualized comparative rhetoric as an inquiry method, and computer-assisted qualitative rhetorical analysis, this dissertation identifies the similarities and differences in the rhetorical strategies adopted by the two doctors. The findings reveal that both doctors utilize similar rhetorical tools, including ethos, kairos, narratives, and metaphors, to effectively communicate about the pandemic to the public. However, they also exhibit differences influenced by contextual factors such as political, social, and cultural contexts. These findings contribute to our understanding of the role of rhetoric in public health experts’ communications about the pandemic in different countries during a global public health crisis.</p>