4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Book Chapter: not found
      Is Open Access
      Research Ethics in Epidemics and Pandemics: A Casebook 

      Afterword

      other
      ,
      Springer International Publishing

      Read this book at

      Buy book Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this book yet. Authors can add summaries to their books on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This casebook offers a window into important aspects of the ethical landscapes that researchers, communities, health professionals, policy makers – and ethicists – had to navigate during the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The cases presented in this casebook are inevitably a selection informed by and constrained by the processes through which they were sought, and by the pandemic itself. Additional cases could valuably complement all the thematic chapters in this casebook. In addition, this casebook calls for a broader approach to research ethics, both in terms of the issues to be considered, and the range of stakeholders having ethical responsibilities relating to the conduct of research. However a broad range of stakeholders have differing values, remits, authorities and capacities to exercise power in pandemic contexts, and in many situations, exercises of power, and their impact on research, are not direct and explicit. As such they are less amenable to clear representation in real-world cases, highlighting the importance of complementing discussions of the cases in this casebook with conceptual literature. Reflection on the research that has not been conducted is also critical. The COVID-19 pandemic has reemphasized that global health emergencies are never only about health. The wide-ranging impacts of the pandemic on economies, employment, education and a range of socially and culturally important activities, accentuates the importance of an equally comprehensive research agenda, which goes beyond a narrow conception of ‘health’, and addresses a broad range of pandemic impacts on populations. A further way in which we believe debate on pandemic research ethics both could and should be broadened is in relation to aspects of pandemic science beyond those relating to ‘response’. Inevitably, in the context of an emerging and continuing pandemic, scientific research attention has tended to focus on interventions that can enable more effective responses. However pandemic science can be thought of as divisible into four interdependent and overlapping domains: prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. Research is essential to the development, evaluation, and deployment of interventions in each of these domains and effective, valuable, trustworthy and trusted research will require ethical questions to be identified and addressed. This chapter concludes by inviting the connection of additional cases and conceptual resources to this casebook, to enhance and expand the themes and topics covered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews

          Abstract Objective To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. Methods We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews’ methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Findings Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises. Conclusion Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people’s digital and health literacy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            COVID-19 Impact on Public Health, Environment, Human Psychology, Global Socioeconomy, and Education

            The end of the year 2019 was marked by the introduction of a third highly pathogenic coronavirus, after SARS-CoV (2003) and MERS-CoV (2012), in the human population which was officially declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. Indeed, the pandemic of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 19) has evolved at an unprecedented rate: after its emergence in Wuhan, the capital of the province of Hubei of the People's Republic of China, in December 2019, the total number of confirmed cases did not cease growing very quickly in the world. In this manuscript, we have provided an overview of the impact of COVID-19 on health, and we have proposed different nutrients suitable for infected patients to boost their immune systems. On the other hand, we have described the advantages and disadvantages of COVID-19 on the environment including the quality of water, air, waste management, and energy consumption, as well as the impact of this pandemic on human psychology, the educational system, and the global economy. In addition, we have tried to come up with some solutions to counter the negative repercussions of the pandemic.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Economic and social impacts of COVID-19 and public health measures: results from an anonymous online survey in Thailand, Malaysia, the UK, Italy and Slovenia

              Objectives To understand the impact of COVID-19 and public health measures on different social groups, we conducted a mixed-methods study in five countries (‘SEBCOV—social, ethical and behavioural aspects of COVID-19’). Here, we report the results of the online survey. Study design and statistical analysis Overall, 5058 respondents from Thailand, Malaysia, the UK, Italy and Slovenia completed the self-administered survey between May and June 2020. Poststratification weighting was applied, and associations between categorical variables assessed. Frequency counts and percentages were used to summarise categorical data. Associations between categorical variables were assessed using Pearson’s χ 2 test. Data were analysed in Stata 15.0 Results Among the five countries, Thai respondents reported having been most, and Slovenian respondents least, affected economically. The following factors were associated with greater negative economic impacts: being 18–24 years or 65 years or older; lower education levels; larger households; having children under 18 in the household and and having flexible/no income. Regarding social impact, respondents expressed most concern about their social life, physical health, mental health and well-being. There were large differences between countries in terms of voluntary behavioural change, and in compliance and agreement with COVID-19 restrictions. Overall, self-reported compliance was higher among respondents who self-reported a high understanding of COVID-19. UK respondents felt able to cope the longest and Thai respondents the shortest with only going out for essential needs or work. Many respondents reported seeing news perceived to be fake, the proportion varying between countries, with education level and self-reported levels of understanding of COVID-19. Conclusions Our data showed that COVID-19 and public health measures have uneven economic and social impacts on people from different countries and social groups. Understanding the factors associated with these impacts can help to inform future public health interventions and mitigate their negative consequences. Trial registration number TCTR20200401002.
                Bookmark

                Author and book information

                Contributors
                Book Chapter
                2024
                April 24 2024
                : 193-201
                10.1007/978-3-031-41804-4_10
                ee261796-83ed-4296-9270-f2f8954b65d3
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this book

                Book chapters