1
|
Watson S, Benning TJ, Marcon AR, Zhu X, Caulfield T, Sharp RR, Master Z. Descriptions of Scientific Evidence and Uncertainty of Unproven COVID-19 Therapies in US News: Content Analysis Study. JMIR INFODEMIOLOGY 2024; 4:e51328. [PMID: 39207825 DOI: 10.2196/51328] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 07/15/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Politicization and misinformation or disinformation of unproven COVID-19 therapies have resulted in communication challenges in presenting science to the public, especially in times of heightened public trepidation and uncertainty. OBJECTIVE This study aims to examine how scientific evidence and uncertainty were portrayed in US news on 3 unproven COVID-19 therapeutics, prior to the development of proven therapeutics and vaccines. METHODS We conducted a media analysis of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics in early 2020. A total of 479 discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and convalescent plasma) in traditional and online US news reports from January 1, 2020, to July 30, 2020, were systematically analyzed for theme, scientific evidence, evidence details and limitations, safety, efficacy, and sources of authority. RESULTS The majority of discussions included scientific evidence (n=322, 67%) although only 24% (n=116) of them mentioned publications. "Government" was the most frequently named source of authority for safety and efficacy claims on remdesivir (n=43, 35%) while "expert" claims were mostly mentioned for convalescent plasma (n=22, 38%). Most claims on hydroxychloroquine (n=236, 79%) were offered by a "prominent person," of which 97% (n=230) were from former US President Trump. Despite the inclusion of scientific evidence, many claims of the safety and efficacy were made by nonexperts. Few news reports expressed scientific uncertainty in discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics as limitations of evidence were infrequently included in the body of news reports (n=125, 26%) and rarely found in headlines (n=2, 2%) or lead paragraphs (n=9, 9%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS These results highlight that while scientific evidence is discussed relatively frequently in news reports, scientific uncertainty is infrequently reported and rarely found in prominent headlines and lead paragraphs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Watson
- Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Tyler J Benning
- Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | | | - Xuan Zhu
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | | | - Richard R Sharp
- Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
- Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Zubin Master
- Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
- Maya Angelou Center for Health Equity, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
- Center for Bioethics, Health and Society, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
- Wake Forest Institute of Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Russo F, Hirsch P. Navigating complex trade-offs in public health interventions. J Eval Clin Pract 2023; 29:430-437. [PMID: 36656768 DOI: 10.1111/jep.13807] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Revised: 12/25/2022] [Accepted: 12/28/2022] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
Public health, just as any policy-related field, faces the evergreen problem of turning knowledge into action. Among other problems, there is a clash between the inherent complexity of public health problems and the inevitable push, by decision-makers and the public, to simplify them. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown the insufficiencies of our current epistemological, methodological and normative apparatus to handle such crises in a timely manner. Despite this, several authors have been arguing for the importance of engaging global crises such as Covid-19 in ways that do not oversimplify key dimensions of the issues involved. In this paper, we contribute to this emerging scholarship. Building on existing work in the field of environmental problem-solving, we propose an integrative approach to navigating complex trade-offs in public health interventions. Briefly put, we propose that decision making should be informed by an analysis of any given problem from four distinct, but interrelated, lenses: (i) values and valuation, (ii) process and governance, (iii) power and inequalities and (iv) scientific evidence, methods and concepts. This normative framework, we argue, can help with spelling out the complexity of public health problems and with spelling out the rationale behind public health decision making to non-specialists and the general public. We illustrate our approach using the controversy over wearing face masks in the Covid-19 pandemic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Federica Russo
- Department of Philosophy & ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, London, England
| | - Paul Hirsch
- Department of Environmental Studies, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, New York, Syracuse, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kraaijeveld SR. The Ethical Significance of Post-Vaccination COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics. JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 2023; 20:21-29. [PMID: 36542290 PMCID: PMC9768787 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-022-10223-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2022] [Accepted: 10/27/2022] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Abstract
The potential for vaccines to prevent the spread of infectious diseases is crucial for vaccination policy and ethics. In this paper, I discuss recent evidence that the current COVID-19 vaccines have only a modest and short-lived effect on reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and argue that this has at least four important ethical implications. First, getting vaccinated against COVID-19 should be seen primarily as a self-protective choice for individuals. Second, moral condemnation of unvaccinated people for causing direct harm to others is unjustified. Third, the case for a harm-based moral obligation to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is weak. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, coercive COVID-19 vaccination policies (e.g., measures that exclude unvaccinated people from society) cannot be directly justified by the harm principle.
Collapse
|
4
|
Puwalski S, Turay O, Papagni N, Adams N. Engaging Local Health Departments to Identify Food Safety Best Practices During a Public Health Emergency. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICE 2022; 28:751-753. [PMID: 36194819 PMCID: PMC9560909 DOI: 10.1097/phh.0000000000001643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Puwalski
- National Association of County and City Health Officials, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Olivia Turay
- National Association of County and City Health Officials, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Noah Papagni
- National Association of County and City Health Officials, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Nicholas Adams
- National Association of County and City Health Officials, Washington, District of Columbia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Haier J, Beller J, Adorjan K, Bleich S, de Greck M, Griesinger F, Heppt MV, Hurlemann R, Mees ST, Philipsen A, Rohde G, Schilling G, Trautmann K, Combs SE, Geyer S, Schaefers J. Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14174317. [PMID: 36077852 PMCID: PMC9454870 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2022] [Revised: 08/30/2022] [Accepted: 08/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. Study Design: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. Methods: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. Results: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. Conclusions: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joerg Haier
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany
- Correspondence:
| | - Johannes Beller
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany
- Medical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
| | - Kristina Adorjan
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital, 80336 Munich, Germany
| | - Stefan Bleich
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
| | - Moritz de Greck
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Frank Griesinger
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Carl von Ossietzky University, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany
| | - Markus V. Heppt
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany
| | - René Hurlemann
- Department of Psychiatry, Karl-Jaspers-Hospital, 26160 Oldenburg, Germany
| | - Soeren Torge Mees
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Friedrichstadt General Hospital, 01067 Dresden, Germany
| | - Alexandra Philipsen
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Gernot Rohde
- Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, University Hospital, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Georgia Schilling
- Department of Hematology, Oncology, Palliative Care and Rheumatology, Asklepios Tumorzentrum, 22763 Hamburg, Germany
| | - Karolin Trautmann
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital, 01307 Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephanie E. Combs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum Rechts der Isar, 81675 Munich, Germany
| | - Siegfried Geyer
- Medical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
| | - Juergen Schaefers
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Haier J, Beller J, Adorjan K, Bleich S, De Greck M, Griesinger F, Hein A, Hurlemann R, Mees ST, Philipsen A, Rohde G, Schilling G, Trautmann K, Combs SE, Geyer S, Schäfers J. Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective. Healthcare (Basel) 2022; 10:1019. [PMID: 35742070 PMCID: PMC9222354 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10061019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2022] [Revised: 05/24/2022] [Accepted: 05/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jörg Haier
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany; (J.B.); (J.S.)
| | - Johannes Beller
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany; (J.B.); (J.S.)
- Medical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany;
| | - Kristina Adorjan
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany;
| | - Stefan Bleich
- Department of Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany;
| | - Moritz De Greck
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60528 Frankfurt, Germany;
| | - Frank Griesinger
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Carl von Ossietzky University, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany;
| | - Alexander Hein
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, 91054 Erlangen, Germany;
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany
| | - René Hurlemann
- Department of Psychiatry, Carl von Ossietzky University, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany;
| | - Sören Torge Mees
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Friedrichstadt General Hospital, 01067 Dresden, Germany;
| | - Alexandra Philipsen
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Bonn, 53105 Bonn, Germany;
| | - Gernot Rohde
- Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, University Hospital, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany;
| | - Georgia Schilling
- Department of Hematology, Oncology, Palliative Care and Rheumatology, Asklepios Hospital Altona, Asklepios Tumorzentrum, 22763 Hamburg, Germany;
| | - Karolin Trautmann
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, 01307 Dresden, Germany;
| | - Stephanie E. Combs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany;
| | - Siegfried Geyer
- Medical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany;
| | - Jürgen Schäfers
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany; (J.B.); (J.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Schuman O, Robertson-Preidler J, Bibler TM. COVID-19 vaccination status should not be used in triage tie-breaking. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2022; 48:medethics-2021-107836. [PMID: 34992085 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2021] [Accepted: 12/17/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
This article discusses the triage response to the COVID-19 delta variant surge of 2021. One issue that distinguishes the delta wave from earlier surges is that by the time it became the predominant strain in the USA in July 2021, safe and effective vaccines against COVID-19 had been available for all US adults for several months. We consider whether healthcare professionals and triage committees would have been justified in prioritising patients with COVID-19 who are vaccinated above those who are unvaccinated in first-order or second-order triage. Given that lack of evidence for a correlation between short-term survival and vaccination, we argue that using vaccination status during first-order triage would be inconsistent with accepted triage standards. We then turn to notions of procedural fairness, equity and desert to argue that that there is also a lack of justification for using vaccination status in second-order triage. In planning for future surges, we recommend that medical institutions base their triage decisions on principles meant to save the most lives, minimise inequity and protect the public's trust, which for the time being would not be served by the inclusion of vaccination status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olivia Schuman
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Trevor M Bibler
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ashby M. A Lost Idyll of Connection? JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 2021; 18:537-540. [PMID: 34940938 PMCID: PMC8696250 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-021-10155-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Ashby
- Cancer, Chronic Disease and Sub-Acute Stream, Royal Hobart Hospital, Tasmanian Health Service, School of Medicine, Royal Hobart Hospital, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|