Including the public in pandemic planning: a deliberative approach

Public opinion on global COVID-19 vaccine procurement and distribution policies: A nationally representative survey in Aotearoa New Zealand 2022

The World Health Organisation and many health experts have regarded vaccine nationalism, a "my country first" approach to vaccines procurement, as a critical pandemic response failure. However, few studies have considered public opinion in this regard. This study gauged public support for vaccine nationalism and vaccine internationalism in a representative survey in New Zealand (N = 1,135). Support for vaccine internationalism (M (mean rating) = 3.64 on 5-point scales) was significantly stronger than for vaccine nationalism (M = 3.24). Additionally, support for openly sharing COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing knowledge and technology (M = 4.17 on 5-point scales) was significantly stronger than support for safeguarding vaccine manufacturers' intellectual property (M = 2.66). The public also supported a utilitarian approach that would see distributions based on need (M = 3.76 on 5-point scales) over an equal proportional international distribution (M = 3.16). Akin to the few preceding studies, the present observations suggest that the public is likely to be more supportive of pandemic responses that are globally equitable and long-term orientated. Our findings have substantial implications for pandemic preparedness as the congruence or lack thereof of public vaccine-related values with government policies can affect public trust, which, in turn, can affect public cooperation. It may pay for governments to invest in proactive public engagement efforts before and during a pandemic to discuss critical ethical issues and inequities in global vaccine procurement and distributions.

Public health risk communication through the lens of a quarantined community: Insights from a coronavirus hotspot in Germany

BACKGROUND

Quarantine is one of the most effective interventions to contain an infectious disease outbreak, yet it is one of the most disruptive. We investigated the quarantine of an entire village to better understand risk communication requirements for groups.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey study on a single cohort of adult residents in Neustadt am Rennsteig, Germany, six weeks after the removal of a 14-day mandatory community quarantine. The survey response rate was 33% (289/883 residents).

FINDINGS

Survey participants reported a lack of information on the quarantine implementation process. What authorities communicated was not necessarily what residents desired to know. While inhabitants used social media and telephones to communicate with each other, the official information sources were regional radio, television, newspapers and official websites. Public health authorities did not employ social media communication to engage with their communities. Despite a lack of information, the majority of respondents stated that they had complied with the quarantine and they expressed little sympathy for those who violated the quarantine. After lifting the quarantine, many respondents continued to avoid places where they suspected a significant risk of infection, such as family and friends' homes, doctor's offices and grocery stores.

INTERPRETATION

The survey participants utilised existing social networks to disseminate vital information and stabilise its group identity and behaviour (quarantine compliance). The authorities communicated sparsely in a unidirectional, top-down manner, without engaging the community. Despite the lack of official information, the social coherency of the group contributed to considerate and compliant conduct, but participants expressed dissatisfaction with official leadership and asked for more attention.

CONCLUSION

Public health risk communication must engage with communities more effectively. This necessitates a deeper comprehension of groups, their modes of communication and their social needs.

Preferences for public engagement in decision-making regarding four COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions in the Netherlands: A survey study

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were implemented during the COVID-19 crisis, which heavily impacted the daily lives of citizens. This study considers public perspectives on whether and how public engagement (PE) can contribute to future decision-making about NPIs.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of the public in the Netherlands from 27 October to 9 November 2021. Perceptions and preferences about PE in decision-making on NPIs to control COVID-19 were collected. Preferences regarding four NPIs were studied: Nightly curfew (NC); Digital Covid Certificate (DCC); Closure of elementary schools and daycares (CED); and physical distancing (1.5M). Engagement was surveyed based on the five participation modes of the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation, namely inform, consult, advice, collaborate and empower.

RESULTS

Of the 4981 respondents, 25% expressed a desire to engage in decision-making, as they thought engagement could improve their understanding and the quality of NPIs, as well as increase their trust in the government. Especially for the NPIs DCC and NC, respondents found it valuable to engage and provide their perspective on trade-offs in values (e.g. opening up society versus division in society by vaccination status). Respondents agreed that the main responsibility in decision-making should stay with experts and policy-makers. 50% of respondents did not want to engage, as they felt no need to engage or considered themselves insufficiently knowledgeable. Inform was deemed the most preferred mode of engagement, and empower the least preferred mode of engagement.

CONCLUSION

We reveal large variations in public preferences regarding engagement in NPI decision-making. With 25% of respondents expressing an explicit desire to engage, and considering the benefit of PE in other areas of (public) health, opportunities for PE in NPI decision-making might have been overlooked during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results provide guidance into when and how to execute PE in future outbreaks.

A Longitudinal Investigation of the Impact of COVID-19 on Patients With Chronic Pain

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted unexpected changes in the healthcare system. This current longitudinal study had 2 aims: 1) describe the trajectory of pandemic-associated stressors and patient-reported health outcomes among patients receiving treatment at a tertiary pain clinic over 2 years (May 2020 to June 2022); and 2) identify vulnerable subgroups. We assessed changes in pandemic-associated stressors and patient-reported health outcome measures. The study sample included 1270 adult patients who were predominantly female (74.6%), White (66.2%), non-Hispanic (80.6%), married (66.1%), not on disability (71.2%), college-educated (59.45%), and not currently working (57.9%). We conducted linear mixed effect modeling to examine the main effect of time with controlling for a random intercept. Findings revealed a significant main effect of time for all pandemic-associated stressors except financial impact. Over time, patients reported increased proximity to COVID-19, but decreased pandemic-associated stressors. A significant improvement was also observed in pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and PROMIS-pain interference, sleep, anxiety, anger, and depression scores. Demographic-based subgroup analyses for pandemic-associated stressors revealed that younger adults, Hispanics, Asians, and patients receiving disability compensation were vulnerable groups either during the initial visit or follow-up visits. We observed additional differential pandemic effects between groups based on participant sex, education level, and working status. In conclusion, despite unanticipated changes in pain care services during the pandemic, patients receiving pain treatments adjusted to pandemic-related stressors and improved their health status over time. As the current study observed differential pandemic impacts on patient subgroups, future studies should investigate and address the unmet needs of vulnerable subgroups. PERSPECTIVE: Over a 2-year timeframe, the pandemic did not adversely influence physical and mental health among treatment-seeking patients with chronic pain. Patients reported small but significant improvements across indices of physical and psychosocial health. Differential impacts emerged among groups based on ethnicity, age, disability status, gender, education level, and working status.

Public opinion in vaccine allocation priority: who comes first?

OBJECTIVE

We investigated people's preferences in COVID-19 vaccine allocation priority, comparing different social categories based on age and occupation. Vaccine allocation preferences were related to perceived health vulnerability and economic backlash (economic negative consequences) endured by the different social groups during the pandemic. In-group favoritism in vaccine allocation preferences was analyzed.

DESIGN

Data were collected through an online survey in Italy (n = 506) before the start of the vaccination campaign.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Vaccine allocation preferences, health vulnerability, and economic backlash due to COVID-19, measured through ranking tasks.

RESULTS

The healthcare workers category was placed at the top of the ranking in vaccine allocation priority by 65% of the respondents. Vaccine allocation priority was related to perceived health vulnerability and not economic difficulties. Limited self-preference effects emerged. People who did not consider healthcare workers a priority (1/5 of the sample) had a lower education level, were more worried about COVID-19 infection risk, and did not trust vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

A consensus emerged on who should be vaccinated first. Governments and policymakers should be aware of these preferences when designing and communicating vaccine allocation plans to predict and foster the public's acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination programs created by experts.

Voices of society: the emergence of civil-society practices aiming to engage in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public groups mobilised themselves in civil-society engagement practices (CSEPs) aiming to improve or suggest alternative epidemic management. This study explores the motivation to establish CSEPs and their perceived contributions to epidemic management, to gain insight whether integrating views of CSEPs could add value. A systematic online search was executed to identify CSEPs focused on COVID-19 management between January 2020 and January 2022 in the Netherlands. In order to create a comprehensible overview of the identified CSEPs, relevant characteristics were gathered and mapped, for example, local or national scope, subject of action and goals. A selection of CSEPs was interviewed between April and June 2022 to study their motivators to start the CSEPs and perceived contributions to management. The search resulted in the identification of 22 CSEPs, of which members of 14 CSEPs were interviewed. These members indicated several issues that motivated the start of their CSEP, namely; shortage of equipment, sense of solidarity, and a perceived lack of governmental action, lack of democratic values and lack in diversity of perspectives in epidemic management. All respondents believed to have contributed to policy or society, by influencing opinions, and occasionally by altering policy. However, respondents encountered obstacles in their attempts to contribute such as inability to establish contact with authorities, feeling unheard or undermined, and complications due to the interplay of political interests. In conclusion, CSEPs have fulfilled various roles such as providing alternative management policies, producing equipment, representing the needs of vulnerable populations, and supporting citizens and providing citizens with other viewpoints and information. The identified motivators to establish CSEPs in this study uncover room for improvements in policy. These insights, together with the identified perceived barriers of CSEPs, can be used to improve the connection between (future) epidemic management and public priorities and interests.

Social innovation in health and community-driven engagement as a key strategy for addressing COVID-19 crisis challenges: insights and reflections from the multicultural society of Iran

Background

Social innovation is one of the strategies for appealing to people and encouraging social cooperation and engagement in interventions during crisis periods. In this regard, community engagement is an operative and innovative community health approach for achieving successful health outcomes. There is limited information about the role and operational impact of social innovation on community engagement during the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis. In this study, we aim to contribute to the understanding of innovative social strategies to attract social participation in crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic by highlighting the experience of social innovative strategies based on community-driven engagement in Iran.

Methods

This qualitative study was conducted in seven provinces of Iran-Mazandaran, Zanjan, Golestan, Lorestan, Tehran, Kurdistan, and Khuzestan-from 4 September 2021 to 1 March 2022. A sample of Iranians (15-71 years) was selected by purposeful and snowball sampling methods to participate in the study, and 187 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. Participants were recruited from three levels of the community: community leaders, healthcare providers, and laypeople. The data collection tool was an interview guide, which was designed based on a review of the literature. The data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Exploratory analyses were performed to identify social innovative strategies based on community engagement used during the COVID-19 crisis in Iran. The interviews continued until data saturation was reached.

Results

Based on our findings, we distilled innovative strategies into 6 main themes and 37 categories: (1) information giving/sharing, (2) consultation, (3) involvement/collaboration, (4) health education and prevention, (5) empowering, and (6) advocacy. The results revealed that the participants were very driven to engage in the management and control of the COVID-19 crisis, even though they faced significant challenges.

Conclusion

The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic required social- and community-based responses. These reactions increased the possibility of fair access to health services, especially for vulnerable groups and minorities. As with other epidemics, applying the experience of the comprehensive participation of communities played an important and active role in the prevention and control of COVID-19. In this regard, giving and sharing information, consultation, involvement/collaboration, health education/prevention, empowerment, and advocacy are the most important innovative strategies that might encourage the community to perform COVID-19 crisis management and control.

Exploring the impact of shielding advice on the wellbeing of individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation

BACKGROUND

The national shielding programme was introduced by UK Government at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) offered advice and support to stay at home and avoid all non-essential contact. This study aimed to explore the impact and responses of "shielding" on the health and wellbeing of CEV individuals in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown.

METHODS

A two-stage mixed methods study, including a structured survey (7 August-23 October 2020) and semi-structured telephone interviews (26 August-30 September 2020) with a sample of individuals who had been identified as CEV and advised to "shield" by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 203 people (57% female, 54% > 69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV by BNSSG CCG. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% > 69 years, 100% White British, 61% retired). Receipt of 'official' communication from NHS England or General Practitioner (GP) was considered by participants as the legitimate start of shielding. 80% of survey responders felt they received all relevant advice needed to shield, yet interviewees criticised the timing of advice and often sought supplementary information. Shielding behaviours were nuanced, adapted to suit personal circumstances, and waned over time. Few interviewees received community support, although food boxes and informal social support were obtained by some. Worrying about COVID-19 was common for survey responders (90%). Since shielding had begun, physical and mental health reportedly worsened for 35% and 42% of survey responders respectively. 21% of survey responders scored ≥ 10 on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored ≥ 10 on the GAD-7 questionnaire indicating possible anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights the difficulties in providing generic messaging that is applicable and appropriate given the diversity of individuals identified as CEV and the importance of sharing tailored and timely advice to inform shielding decisions. Providing messages that reinforce self-determined action and assistance from support services could reduce the negative impact of shielding on mental health and feelings of social isolation.

Public engagement in decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 epidemic: Views and expectations of the 'publics'

Background

In the management of epidemics, like COVID‐19, trade‐offs have to be made between reducing mortality and morbidity and minimizing socioeconomic and political consequences. Traditionally, epidemic management (EM) has been guided and executed attentively by experts and policymakers. It can, however, still be controversial in the public sphere. In the last decades, public engagement (PE) has been successfully applied in various aspects of healthcare. This leads to the question if PE could be implemented in EM decision‐making.

Methods

From June to October 2020, seven deliberative discussion focus groups were executed with 35 Dutch citizens between 19 and 84 years old. Their views on PE in COVID‐19 management were explored. The deliberative approach allows for the education of participants on the topic before the discussion. The benefits, barriers, timing and possible forms of PE in EM were discussed.

Results

Almost all participants supported PE in EM, as they thought that integrating their experiences and ideas would benefit the quality of EM, and increase awareness and acceptance of measures. A fitting mode for PE was consultation, as it was deemed important to provide the public with possibilities to share ideas and feedback; however, final authority remained with experts. The publics could particularly provide input about communication campaigns and control measures. PE could be executed after the first acute phase of the epidemic and during evaluations.

Conclusions

This paper describes the construction of an empirically informed framework about the values and conditions for PE in EM from the perspective of the public. Participants expressed support to engage certain population groups and considered it valuable for the quality and effectiveness of EM; however, they expressed doubts about the feasibility of PE and the capabilities of citizens. In future studies, these results should be confirmed by a broader audience.

Patient or Public Contribution

No patients or members of the public were involved in the construction and execution of this study. This study was very exploratory, to gain a first insight into the views of the public in the Netherlands, and will be used to develop engagement practices accordingly. At this stage, the involvement of the public was not yet appropriate.

“Thought provoking”, “interactive”, and “more like a peer talk”: Testing the deliberative interview style in Germany

Proponents of the newly-developed “deliberative interview” argue that examining complex issues requires more dynamic and engaging interview exchanges. Unlike traditional qualitative interviews, deliberative interviewing champions opinion sharing, active debates and similar speaking times by both sides throughout the interview. Drawing on 20 interviews with health experts in Germany, we examined the process and outcome of deliberative versus conventional interviews on the topic of informed consent. The deliberative interview expedited clarity on the issue, led to more nuanced discussion and generated more knowledge overall, but was challenging because it broke the mold for traditional interviewing. Alignment in terms of gender, age, personality and professional background facilitated rapport, regardless of interview style. To manage expectations, we recommend a thorough, perhaps video-based explanation of the deliberative style prior to the interview. Deliberative interviews can bolster knowledge generation for complex issues and can be applied in public health and beyond.

Patient and public engagement in decision-making regarding infectious disease outbreak management: an integrative review

Introduction

Worldwide, people experience the effects of infectious disease outbreaks on a regular basis. These effects vary from direct impact of the virus on health, to indirect impact of control measures on day-to-day life. Yet, incorporating the experiences, views and ideas of patients and the public in decision-making in managing outbreaks does not take place on a structural basis. However, this might be beneficial. We examined the current incorporation of patient and public engagement (PPE) in decision-making regarding outbreak management (OM).

Methods

A systematic search was executed in PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus and other literature sources. Papers describing PPE in decision-making regarding OM on a collective level (group-level) were included. Relevant information about study characteristics, methods, impact and embedment of PPE in decision-making in OM was collected.

Results

The search yielded 4186 papers of which 13 were included. The papers varied in study context and design. Remarkably, no substantial patient engagement was identified. Overall, public engagement (PE) in decision-making regarding OM was mostly executed by a mix of methods, for example, workshops, interviews and surveys. Knowledge and idea sharing between the public and experts was deemed beneficial for establishing well-informed discussions. The efforts resulted in either direct implications for practice or recommendations in policy papers. Most papers described their efforts as a first step. No structural embedment of collective PE in decision-making regarding OM was identified. Furthermore, the quality of most papers was low to moderate due to insufficient description.

Conclusion

Overall, various practices for PE can be potentially valuable, but structural embedment in OM decision-making on a collective level was low. Before PPE can be permanently embedded in OM, more evidence on its impact needs to be collected. Furthermore, reporting on the engagement process and used terminology needs to be harmonised to ensure reproducibility and transparency.

Social distancing measures: barriers to their implementation and how they can be overcome - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite their central role in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic and previous infectious disease outbreaks, factors influencing the acceptability and implementation of social distancing measures are poorly understood. This systematic review aims to identify such factors drawing on qualitative literature.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in eleven databases. Papers were included in the review if they reported on qualitative studies of factors influencing the implementation of social distancing measures in potentially epidemic infectious diseases. An adapted meta-ethnographical approach was used for synthesis. Review findings were assessed for strength and reliability using GRADE-CERQual.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine papers were included from the systematic search that yielded 5620 results, and supplementary methods. The review identifies two broad categories of barriers to social distancing measures: individual- or community-level psychosocial phenomena, and shortcomings in governmental action or communication. Based on this, 25 themes are identified that can be addressed to improve the implementation of social distancing.

CONCLUSION

Among other findings, the review identifies the need for good communication as well as the need for authorities to provide comprehensive support as two key opportunities to increase acceptability and adherence. Further important enablers of adherence are adequate preparedness and appropriate legislation, the presence of community involvement, solidarity within communities and trust in governments and authorities.

How Much Money Should be Paid for a Patient to Isolate During the COVID-19 Outbreak? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Iran

INTRODUCTION

Isolation of COVID-19 patients is a vital strategy for preventing the spread of the virus. Isolation without any incentive or compensation for the patients cannot be effective. We sought to find the monetary value of the willingness to accept (WTA) being isolated for COVID-19 in Iran.

METHODS

In this discrete choice experiment, scenarios were designed by reviewing the literature and semi-structural interviews. Fourteen choice sets with two scenarios were included in an internet-based questionnaire that was sent to the Telegram Social Network. A total of 617 individuals completed the questionnaire. A random-effects logistic regression model was used for the main analysis.

RESULTS

The average monetary value of a WTA 7 days of isolation was US$51.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 43.09-60.33). The WTA for one day of isolation was US$1.48 (95% CI 1.11-1.85) for unemployed groups, US$1.49 (95% CI 1.18-1.79) for office employees and US$1.36 (95% CI 0.73-2.01) for manual workers. The WTA was 0.44 (95% CI 0.35-0.53) US$ for low-income groups, US$0.68 (95% CI 0.52-0.84) for middle-income groups and US$0.77 (95% CI 0.35-1.18) for high-income groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggested that financial preferences for being isolated vary widely across individuals within different socioeconomic groups. Policymakers should consider these differences when designing effective intervention to increase compliance with the isolation protocols during infectious disease outbreaks.

Community engagement for outbreak preparedness and response in high-income settings: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

This review aims to (i) identify and critique existing methods of community engagement for outbreak preparedness and response in high-income settings, and (ii) understand community members' experiences of community engagement, and their views and concerns towards pandemic planning/response.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, Embase, PubMed, Global Health, CINAHL Plus and Scopus for publications from 2004 to June 2019. Potential literature was screened using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Research checklist. Those using deliberative approaches were appraised using additional criteria for judging deliberation quality. Thematic synthesis was then conducted.

RESULTS

Primary studies employed participatory research approaches, deliberative forums, interviews/focus groups to engage community members on pandemic planning/response with varying degrees of involvement and methodological rigour. This review indicates such endeavours must take into account instrumental and relational considerations: socioeconomic pressures; agency and capacity; diversity and divergent views; educate, communicate and engage; trust and transparency.

CONCLUSION

Community engagement for pandemic planning/response requires clear methods, processes and who 'community' constitutes. Instrumental and relational considerations must be addressed concurrently in pandemic planning/response to enhance preparedness for public health emergencies.

Quarantine acceptance and adherence: qualitative evidence synthesis and conceptual framework

Aim

Emergent infectious diseases often lack medical treatment or preventive vaccines, thus requiring non-pharmaceutical interventions such as quarantine to reduce disease transmission. Quarantine, defined as the separation and restriction of movement of healthy people who have potentially been exposed to the disease, remains contentious especially when the risks and benefits are not fully discussed and not effectively communicated to the people by the organizations who impose this public health measure.

Subject and methods

A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted to examine the phenomenon of adherence to quarantine focused on the following questions: What strategies affect adherence to quarantine? What are the barriers and facilitators to quarantine acceptance? What benefits and harms of quarantine have been described or measured?

Results

The evidence synthesis produced 18 findings assessed with high confidence. The findings were used to construct a conceptual framework for inter- and within-organization coordination and public communication that includes the following topics for consideration: desired orientation for implementation; population demographics; perceptions of messages; prior acceptance of quarantine; likelihood of impacts of quarantine; perceptions of health infrastructure; and perceptions of policy importance.

Conclusion

The findings and conceptual framework can guide development of effective non-pharmaceutical interventions and as such have direct relevance to public health policy and decision-making for intervening in emergent infectious diseases outbreak such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Cross-sectional study of psychosocial and pain-related variables among patients with chronic pain during a time of social distancing imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a tremendous impact, including on individuals with chronic pain. The social distancing policies necessary to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 have involved increased levels of social isolation. This cross-sectional survey study examined pain severity and interference among individuals with chronic pain during an early phase of social distancing mandates and identified characteristics of individuals who were most impacted. Approximately 4 to 8 weeks after social distancing mandates commenced in the state of Massachusetts, 150 patients with fibromyalgia, chronic spine, and postsurgical pain completed demographic, pain, social distancing, and validated psychosocial questionnaires. Patients self-reported an overall significant increase in pain severity and pain interference, compared with before social distancing, although both pain severity and interference were quite variable among individuals under conditions of social distancing. Several demographic, socioeconomic, and psychosocial factors were associated with greater pain severity and interference during social distancing. Multivariable linear regression demonstrated that female sex, nonwhite race, lower education, disability, fibromyalgia, and higher pain catastrophizing were independently associated with greater pain severity, while female sex and pain catastrophizing were independently associated greater pain interference. The findings suggest that individual differences among patients with chronic pain should be considered in the planning, development, and prioritization of interventions to improve pain care and to prevent worsening of symptoms during the continuing COVID-19 pandemic.

Priority allocation of pandemic influenza vaccines in Australia - Recommendations of 3 community juries

BACKGROUND

Pandemic planning has historically been oriented to respond to an influenza virus, with vaccination strategy being a key focus. As the current COVID-19 pandemic plays out, the Australian government is closely monitoring progress towards development of SARS-CoV2 vaccines as a definitive intervention. However, as in any pandemic, initial supply will likely be exceeded by demand due to limited manufacturing output.

METHODS

We convened community juries in three Australian locations in 2019 to assess public acceptability and perceived legitimacy of influenza pandemic vaccination distribution strategies. Preparatory work included literature reviews on pandemic vaccine allocation strategies and on vaccine allocation ethics, and simulation modelling studies. We assumed vaccine would be provided to predefined priority groups. Jurors were then asked to recommend one of two strategies for distributing remaining early doses of vaccine: directly vaccinate people at higher risk of adverse outcomes from influenza; or indirectly protect the general population by vaccinating primary school students, who are most likely to spread infection.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants of diverse backgrounds and ages were recruited through random digit dialling and topic-blinded social media advertising. Juries heard evidence and arguments supporting different vaccine distribution strategies, and questioned expert presenters. All three community juries supported prioritising school children for influenza vaccination (aiming for indirect protection), one by 10-2 majority and two by consensus. Justifications included that indirect protection benefits more people and is likely to be more publicly acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of an influenza pandemic, informed citizens were not opposed to prioritising groups at higher risks of adverse outcomes, but if resources and epidemiological conditions allow, achieving population benefits should be a strategic priority. These insights may inform future SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies.

The indirect impact of COVID-19 on child health

Since the detection of COVID-19 in December 2019, the rapid spread of the disease worldwide has led to a new pandemic, with the number of infected individuals and deaths rising daily. Early experience shows that it predominantly affects older age groups with children and young adults being generally more resilient to more severe disease.1, 2, 3 From a health standpoint, children and young people are less directly affected than adults and presentation of the disease has shown different characteristics. Nonetheless, COVID-19 has had severe repercussions on children and young people. These indirect, downstream implications should not be ignored. An understanding of the issues is essential for those who hope to advocate effectively for children to prevent irreversible damage to the adults of the future. This article reviews some of the evidence of harm to children that may accrue indirectly as a result of pandemics. It explores the physical and psychological effects, discusses the role of parenting and education, offering practical advice about how best to provide support as a healthcare professional.

A national cross-sectional survey of public perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic: Self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors

Introduction

Efforts to mitigate the global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) have largely relied on broad compliance with public health recommendations yet navigating the high volume of evolving information can be challenging. We assessed self-reported public perceptions related to COVID-19 including, beliefs (e.g., severity, concerns, health), knowledge (e.g., transmission, information sources), and behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) to understand perspectives in Canada and to inform future public health initiatives.

Methods

We administered a national online survey aiming to obtain responses from 2000 adults in Canada. Respondent sampling was stratified by age, sex, and region. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses and tested for regional differences using chi-squared tests, followed by weighted logistic regression.

Results

We collected 1,996 eligible questionnaires between April 26^th and May 1^st, 2020. One-fifth (20%) of respondents knew someone diagnosed with COVID-19, but few had tested positive themselves (0.6%). Negative impacts of pandemic conditions were evidenced in several areas, including concerns about healthcare (e.g. sufficient equipment, 52%), pandemic stress (45%), and worsening social (49%) and mental/emotional (39%) health. Most respondents (88%) felt they had good to excellent knowledge of virus transmission, and predominantly accessed (74%) and trusted (60%) Canadian news television, newspapers/magazines, or non-government news websites for COVID-19 information. We found high compliance with distancing measures (80% reported self-isolating or always physical distancing). We identified associations between region and self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors related to COVID-19.

Discussion

We found that information about COVID-19 is largely acquired through domestic news sources, which may explain high self-reported compliance with prevention measures. The results highlight the broader impact of a pandemic on the general public’s overall health and wellbeing, outside of personal infection. The study findings should be used to inform public health communications during COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Citizens' juries give verdict on whether private practice veterinarians should attend unvaccinated Hendra virus suspect horses

BACKGROUND

Hendra virus (HeV) is endemic in Australian flying foxes, posing a threat to equine and human health. Equine vaccination remains the most effective risk mitigation strategy. Many horses remain unvaccinated - even in higher-risk regions. Debate surrounding the vaccine's use is characterised by conflicting perspectives, misunderstanding and mistrust. Private veterinary practitioners are critical to early identification of public health risk through recognition, sampling and management of suspect-equine-HeV-cases. However, managing such cases can be burdensome, with some veterinarians opting not to attend unvaccinated horses or to abandon equine practice because of risk posed by HeV disease and liability.

OBJECTIVE

Ascertain the perspectives of informed citizens on what obligations (if any) private veterinarians have to attend unvaccinated horses with HeV or HeV-like disease.

METHODS

Three citizens' juries were tasked with considering approaches to managing HeV risk in Australia, including (reported here) roles and obligations of private veterinarians in responding to HeV-suspect-cases.

RESULTS

Jurors acknowledged that HeV management posed an important challenge for private veterinarians. A clear majority (27 of 31 jurors) voted that veterinarians should not be obliged to attend unvaccinated horses. All recognised that greater support for veterinarians should be a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

When informed of HeV risks and strategies for control and management, citizens appreciated the need to support veterinarians performing this critical 'One Health' role for public benefit. The current governance framework within which zoonotic disease recognition and response operates limits the contingency and scope for increasing support and efficacy of these important veterinary public health practices.

A Preliminary Evaluation of the Public Risk Perception Related to the COVID-19 Health Emergency in Italy

Governments faced with the spread of COVID-19 pandemic are adopting strict and severe mitigation measures to influence people's behaviors. Public perception of health risk plays a key role in the adoption of these actions, in people's feelings, and in their daily habits. To support decision makers from international to local levels to face with future sanitary emergencies, this study aims at investigating Italian public perceptions of health risk. To this purpose, a questionnaire was designed and administered within the period of Italian COVID-19 lockdown and quarantine to almost 9000 citizens in Italy and abroad. The obtained results highlight a significative influence that mass media play on both the level of knowledge and the feelings of the respondents. The findings also point out future variations of some perceived behaviors consequent to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Influence of Community and Culture in the Ethical Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in a Pandemic Situation: Deliberative Democracy Study

BACKGROUND

Stark gaps exist between projected health needs in a pandemic situation and the current capacity of health care and medical countermeasure systems. Existing pandemic ethics discussions have advocated to engage the public in scarcity dilemmas and attend the local contexts and cultural perspectives that shape responses to a global health threat. This public engagement study thus considers the role of community and culture in the ethical apportionment of scarce health resources, specifically ventilators, during an influenza pandemic. It builds upon a previous exploration of the values and preferences of Maryland residents regarding how a finite supply of mechanical ventilators ought to be allocated during a severe global outbreak of influenza. An important finding of this earlier research was that local history and place within the state engendered different ways of thinking about scarcity.

OBJECTIVE

Given the intrastate variation in the themes expressed by Maryland participants, the project team sought to examine interstate differences by implementing the same protocol elsewhere to answer the following questions. Does variation in ethical frames of reference exist within different regions of the United States? What practical implications does evidence of sameness and difference possess for pandemic planners and policymakers at local and national levels?

METHODS

Research using the same deliberative democracy process from the Maryland study was conducted in Central Texas in March 2018 among 30 diverse participants, half of whom identified as Hispanic or Latino. Deliberative democracy provides a moderated process through which community members can learn facts about a public policy matter from experts and explore their own and others' views.

RESULTS

Participants proposed that by evenly distributing supplies of ventilators and applying clear eligibility criteria consistently, health authorities could enable fair allocation of scarce lifesaving equipment. The strong identification, attachment, and obligation of persons toward their nuclear and extended families emerged as a distinctive regional and ethnic core value that has practical implications for the substance, administration, and communication of allocation frameworks.

CONCLUSIONS

Maryland and Central Texas residents expressed a common, overriding concern about the fairness of allocation decisions. Central Texas deliberants, however, more readily expounded upon family as a central consideration. In Central Texas, family is a principal, culturally inflected lens through which life and death matters are often viewed. Conveners of other pandemic-related public engagement exercises in the United States have advocated the benefits of transparency and inclusivity in developing an ethical allocation framework; this study demonstrates cultural competence as a further advantage.

Managing the risk of Hendra virus spillover in Australia using ecological approaches: A report on three community juries

BACKGROUND

Hendra virus (HeV) infection is endemic in Australian flying-fox populations. Habitat loss has increased the peri-urban presence of flying-foxes, increasing the risk of contact and therefore viral 'spillovers' into horse and human populations. An equine vaccine is available and horse-husbandry practices that minimize HeV exposure are encouraged, but their adoption is suboptimal. Ecological approaches-such as habitat creation and conservation-could complement vaccination and behavioural strategies by reducing spillover risks, but these are controversial.

METHODS

We convened three community juries (two regional; one metropolitan) to elicit the views of well-informed citizens on the acceptability of adding ecological approaches to current interventions for HeV risk. Thirty-one participants of diverse backgrounds, mixed genders and ages were recruited using random-digit-dialling. Each jury was presented with balanced factual evidence, given time to ask questions of expert presenters and, after deliberation, come to well-reasoned conclusions.

RESULTS

All juries voted unanimously that ecological strategies should be included in HeV risk management strategies but concluded that current interventions-including vaccination and changing horse-husbandry practices-must remain the priority. The key reasons given for adopting ecological approaches were: (i) they address underlying drivers of disease emergence, (ii) the potential to prevent spillover of other bat-borne pathogens, and (iii) there would be broader community benefits. Juries differed regarding the best mechanism to create/conserve flying-fox habitat: participants in regional centres favoured direct government action, whereas the metropolitan jury preferred to place the burden on landholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Informed citizens acknowledge the value of addressing the drivers of bat-borne infectious risks but differ substantially as to the best implementation strategies. Ecological approaches to securing bat habitat could find broad social support in Australia, but disagreement about how best to achieve them indicates the need for negotiation with affected communities to co-develop fair, effective and locally appropriate policies.

Listen to the public and fulfil their information interests - translating vaccine communication research findings into guidance for regulators

Regulatory authorities have a crucial role in communicating about the vaccines they license. In terms of content and timing, their communication to the public is usually driven by data on quality, safety and efficacy. However, concerns over safety and vaccine hesitancy have emerged in some communities in various countries, and this demands a new approach to communication, starting with listening to the public debate. Reviewing communication research findings, coming in particular from the cognitive, decision‐making and media sciences, constitutes one mechanism of listening and has led the European Union (EU) regulatory network to developing guidance about which common concerns and information needs of the public to address through proactive and prepared communication. The guidance has been welcomed by EU and international fora. The current article summarizes the recommendations and shares the underlying research findings, as well as a proof of concept that communication research can be valuable for regulators. It is critical that regulators integrate the communication process with product risk assessment in the framework of pharmacovigilance, to ensure that public concerns are addressed in the assessments and that information about evidence and uncertainty relating to safety is provided to the public and vaccination policy makers in a specific, clear and accurate manner. Additionally, information from regulatory authorities should support healthcare professionals in their communication with patients. Meeting the information interests of the public is the principal prerequisite for informed decisions as well as safe and effective use of vaccines and medicines overall. This is also fundamental for trust in the authorities' commitment to patient and population health.

Genuine participation in participant-centred research initiatives: the rhetoric and the potential reality

The introduction of Web 2.0 technology, along with a population increasingly proficient in Information and Communications Technology (ICT), coupled with the rapid advancements in genetic testing methods, has seen an increase in the presence of participant-centred research initiatives. Such initiatives, aided by the centrality of ICT interconnections, and the ethos they propound seem to further embody the ideal of increasing the participatory nature of research, beyond what might be possible in non-ICT contexts alone. However, the majority of such research seems to actualise a much narrower definition of 'participation'-where it is merely the case that such research initiatives have increased contact with participants through ICT but are otherwise non-participatory in any important normative sense. Furthermore, the rhetoric of participant-centred initiatives tends to inflate this minimalist form of participation into something that it is not, i.e. something genuinely participatory, with greater connections with both the ICT-facilitated political contexts and the largely non-ICT participatory initiatives that have expanded in contemporary health and research contexts. In this paper, we highlight that genuine (ICT-based) 'participation' should enable a reasonable minimum threshold of participatory engagement through, at least, three central participatory elements: educative, sense of being involved and degree of control. While we agree with criticisms that, at present, genuine participation seems more rhetoric than reality, we believe that there is clear potential for a greater ICT-facilitated participatory engagement on all three participatory elements. We outline some practical steps such initiatives could take to further develop these elements and thereby their level of ICT-facilitated participatory engagement.

Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries

Citizens'/community juries [CJs] engage members of the public in policy decision-making processes. CJs can be employed to develop policy responses to health problems that require the consideration of both community values and scientific evidence. Based on the principles of deliberative democracy, recent reviews indicate that findings from CJs have successfully been used to influence health policy decision-making. Despite this evidence of success, there appears to be a gap between the goals of health researchers who organize CJs and the needs of policy actors and decision makers. Drawing on our experiences working with CJs and recent research on CJ methods, we describe a synopsis of the current state of the art organized around four key questions, and informed by insights from deliberative theory and critical policy studies. Our intention is to stimulate further discussion as to the types of health policy questions that can be usefully addressed through public deliberation, and provide guidance on the methodological and political dimensions that need to be considered in deciding whether a CJ is an appropriate approach for informing a policy decision-making process.

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015

Background

Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer‐reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards.

Design

Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting.

Results

CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38).

Conclusions

Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

Implementing a One Health approach to emerging infectious disease: reflections on the socio-political, ethical and legal dimensions

BACKGROUND

'One Health' represents a call for health researchers and practitioners at the human, animal and environmental interfaces to work together to mitigate the risks of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases (EIDs). A One Health approach emphasizing inter-disciplinary co-operation is increasingly seen as necessary for effective EID control and prevention. There are, however, socio-political, ethical and legal challenges, which must be met by such a One Health approach.

DISCUSSION

Based on the philosophical review and critical analysis of scholarship around the theory and practice of One Health it is clear that EID events are not simply about pathogens jumping species barriers; they are comprised of complex and contingent sets of relations that involve socioeconomic and socio-political drivers and consequences with the latter extending beyond the impact of the disease. Therefore, the effectiveness of policies based on One Health depends on their implementation and alignment with or modification of public values. Despite its strong motivating rationale, implementing a One Health approach in an integrated and considered manner can be challenging, especially in the face of a perceived crisis. The effective control and prevention of EIDs therefore requires: (i) social science research to improve understanding of how EID threats and responses play out; (ii) the development of an analytic framework that catalogues case experiences with EIDs, reflects their dynamic nature and promotes inter-sectoral collaboration and knowledge synthesis; (iii) genuine public engagement processes that promote transparency, education and capture people's preferences; (iv) a set of practical principles and values that integrate ethics into decision-making procedures, against which policies and public health responses can be assessed; (v) integration of the analytic framework and the statement of principles and values outlined above; and (vi) a focus on genuine reform rather than rhetoric.

Citizens' Perspectives on Disinvestment from Publicly Funded Pathology Tests: A Deliberative Forum

BACKGROUND

Deliberative forums can be useful tools in policy decision making for balancing citizen voice and community values against dominant interests.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of a deliberative forum to explore community perspectives on a complex health problem-disinvestment.

METHODS

A deliberative forum of citizens was convened in Adelaide, South Australia, to develop criteria to support disinvestment from public funding of ineffective pathology tests. The case study of potential disinvestment from vitamin B12/folate pathology testing was used to shape the debate. The forum was informed by a systematic review of B12/folate pathology test effectiveness and expert testimony.

RESULTS

The citizens identified seven criteria: cost of the test, potential impact on individual health/capacity to benefit, potential cost to society, public good, alternatives to testing, severity of the condition, and accuracy of the test. The participants not only saw these criteria as an interdependent network but also questioned "the authority" of policymakers to make these decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Coherence between the criteria devised by the forum and those described by an expert group was considerable, the major differences being that the citizens did not consider equity issues and the experts neglected the "cost" of social and emotional impact of disinvestment on users and the society.

Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups

Background

Measures to improve the quality and sustainability of healthcare practice and provision have become a policy concern. In addition, the involvement of stakeholders in health policy decision-making has been advocated, as complex questions arise around the structure of funding arrangements in a context of limited resources. Using a case study of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), deliberative engagements with a range of stakeholder groups were held on the topic of how best to structure the distribution of Australian public funding in this domain.

Methods

Deliberative engagements were carried out with groups of ART consumers, clinicians and community members. The forums were informed by a systematic review of ART treatment safety and effectiveness (focusing, in particular, on maternal age and number of treatment cycles), as well as by international policy comparisons, and ethical and cost analyses. Forum discussions were transcribed and subject to thematic analysis.

Results

Each forum demonstrated stakeholders’ capacity to understand concepts of choice under resource scarcity and disinvestment, and to countenance options for ART funding not always aligned with their interests. Deliberations in each engagement identified concerns around ‘equity’ and ‘patient responsibility’, culminating in a broad preference for (potential) ART subsidy restrictions to be based upon individual factors rather than maternal age or number of treatment cycles. Community participants were open to restrictions based upon measures of body mass index (BMI) and smoking status, while consumers and clinicians saw support to improve these factors as part of an ART treatment program, as distinct from a funding criterion. All groups advocated continued patient co-payments, with measures in place to provide treatment access to those unable to pay (namely, equity of access).

Conclusions

Deliberations yielded qualitative, socially-negotiated evidence required to inform ethical, accountable policy decisions in the specific area of ART and health care more broadly. Notably, reductionist, deterministic characterizations of stakeholder ‘self-interest’ proved unfounded as each group sought to prioritise universal values (in particular, ‘equity’ and ‘responsibility’) over specific, within-group concerns. Our results - from an emotive case study in ART - highlight that evidence-informed disinvestment decision-making is feasible, and potentially less controversial than often presumed.

Leave entitlements, time off work and the household financial impacts of quarantine compliance during an H1N1 outbreak

Background

The Australian state of Victoria, with 5.2 million residents, enforced home quarantine during a H1N1 pandemic in 2009. The strategy was targeted at school children. The objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which parents’ access to paid sick leave or paid carer’s leave was associated with (a) time taken off work to care for quarantined children, (b) household finances, and (c) compliance with quarantine recommendations.

Methods

We conducted an online and telephone survey of households recruited through 33 schools (85% of eligible schools), received 314 responses (27%), and analysed the subsample of 133 households in which all resident parents were employed.

Results

In 52% of households, parents took time off work to care for quarantined children. Households in which no resident parent had access to leave appeared to be less likely to take time off work (42% vs 58%, p=0.08) although this difference had only borderline significance. Among parents who did take time off work, those in households without access to leave were more likely to lose pay (73% vs 21%, p<0.001). Of the 26 households in which a parent lost pay due to taking time off work, 42% experienced further financial consequences such as being unable to pay a bill. Access to leave did not predict compliance with quarantine recommendations.

Conclusions

Future pandemic plans should consider the economic costs borne by households and options for compensating quarantined families for income losses.

The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment

Background

Governments and other payers are yet to determine optimal processes by which to review the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of technologies and procedures that are in active use within health systems, and rescind funding (partially or fully) from those that display poor profiles against these parameters. To further progress a disinvestment agenda, a model is required to support payers in implementing disinvestment in a transparent manner that may withstand challenge from vested interests and concerned citizens. Combining approaches from health technology assessment and deliberative democratic theory, this project seeks to determine if and how wide stakeholder engagement can contribute to improved decision-making processes, wherein the views of both vested and non-vested stakeholders are seen to contribute to informing policy implementation within a disinvestment context.

Methods/design

Systematic reviews pertaining to illustrative case studies were developed and formed the evidence base for discussion. Review findings were presented at a series of deliberative, evidence-informed stakeholder engagements, including partisan (clinicians and consumers) and non-partisan (representative community members) stakeholders. Participants were actively facilitated towards identifying shared and dissenting perspectives regarding public funding policy for each of the case studies and developing their own funding models in response to the evidence presented. Policy advisors will subsequently be invited to evaluate disinvestment options based on the scientific and colloquial evidence presented to them, and to explore the value of this information to their decision-making processes with reference to disinvestment.

Discussion

Analysis of the varied outputs of the deliberative engagements will contribute to the methodological development around how to best integrate scientific and colloquial evidence for consideration by policy advisors. It may contribute to the legitimization of broad and transparent stakeholder engagement in this context. It is anticipated that decision making will benefit from the knowledge delivered through informed deliberation with engaged stakeholders, and this will be explored through interviews with key decision makers.

News and social media: windows into community perspectives on disinvestment

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study, in the context of disinvestment related health technology assessment, is to examine whether analysis of Web 2.0--commercial media output, blogs, and discussion forums--can provide an understanding of media framing, community perspectives, and the sociopolitical aspects of an entrenched technology.

METHODS

Thematic analysis of relevant data from fifty-nine media articles, thirty-nine discussion forums, thirteen blogs, and three Facebook pages relating to our case study: public funding for assisted reproductive technology services. Mainstream media and community-based social media responses were compared.

RESULTS

Media responses were narrow, primarily describing emotive individual narratives or the political nexus of interests. Community (including patient) responses were broader including discussion of opportunity cost and vested interests but mostly reflected the polar ends of the debate, diverging strongly for or against disinvestment from public funding.

CONCLUSION

Web2.0 and media analysis offers an inexpensive method to capture media portrayal, divergent community responses both to that portrayal and independent of it, and insight into the sociopolitical aspects of an entrenched technology undergoing disinvestment debate.

A community-based participatory approach and engagement process creates culturally appropriate and community informed pandemic plans after the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic: remote and isolated First Nations communities of sub-arctic Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Public health emergencies have the potential to disproportionately impact disadvantaged populations due to pre-established social and economic inequalities. Internationally, prior to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, existing pandemic plans were created with limited public consultation; therefore, the unique needs and characteristics of some First Nations communities may not be ethically and adequately addressed. Engaging the public in pandemic planning can provide vital information regarding local values and beliefs that may ultimately lead to increased acceptability, feasibility, and implementation of pandemic plans. Thus, the objective of the present study was to elicit and address First Nations community members' suggested modifications to their community-level pandemic plans after the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

METHODS

The study area included three remote and isolated First Nations communities located in sub-arctic Ontario, Canada. A community-based participatory approach and community engagement process (i.e., semi-directed interviews (n = 13), unstructured interviews (n = 4), and meetings (n = 27)) were employed. Participants were purposively sampled and represented various community stakeholders (e.g., local government, health care, clergy, education, etc.) involved in the community's pandemic response. Collected data were manually transcribed and coded using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The data subsequently informed the modification of the community-level pandemic plans.

RESULTS

The primary modifications incorporated in the community-level pandemic plans involved adding community-specific detail. For example, 'supplies' emerged as an additional category of pandemic preparedness and response, since including details about supplies and resources was important due to the geographical remoteness of the study communities. Furthermore, it was important to add details of how, when, where, and who was responsible for implementing recommendations outlined in the pandemic plans. Additionally, the roles and responsibilities of the involved organizations were further clarified.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results illustrate the importance of engaging the public, especially First Nations, in pandemic planning to address local perspectives. The community engagement process used was successful in incorporating community-based input to create up-to-date and culturally-appropriate community-level pandemic plans. Since these pandemic plans are dynamic in nature, we recommend that the plans are continuously updated to address the communities' evolving needs. It is hoped that these modified plans will lead to an improved pandemic response capacity and health outcomes, during the next public health emergency, for these remote and isolated First Nations communities. Furthermore, the suggested modifications presented in this paper may help inform updates to the community-level pandemic plans of other similar communities.

Consent and public engagement in an era of expanded childhood immunisation

Childhood immunisation programmes have seen well-heralded successes in disease control. An increasing number of scheduled vaccines, narrowing risk-benefit ratios and public attention to vaccine safety raise new questions about consent. We first explore the challenges that this highly dynamic environment poses for valid consent. Then, we broaden this discussion to wider public engagement by suggesting how the public - the bearers of vaccine risk and benefit - can be better involved in immunisation policy.

Could influenza transmission be reduced by restricting mass gatherings? Towards an evidence-based policy framework

Introduction: Mass gatherings (MG) may provide ideal conditions for influenza transmission. The evidence for an association between MG and influenza transmission is reviewed to assess whether restricting MG may reduce transmission.

Methods: Major databases were searched (Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL), producing 1706 articles that were sifted by title, abstract, and full-text. A narrative approach was adopted for data synthesis.

Results: Twenty-four papers met the inclusion criteria, covering MG of varying sizes and settings, and including 9 observational studies, 10 outbreak reports, 4 event reports, and a quasi-experimental study. There is some evidence that certain types of MG may be associated with increased risk of influenza transmission. MG may also “seed” new strains into an area, and may instigate community transmission in a pandemic. Restricting MGs, in combination with other social distancing interventions, may help reduce transmission, but it was not possible to identify conclusive evidence on the individual effect of MG restriction alone. Evidence suggests that event duration and crowdedness may be the key factors that determine the risk of influenza transmission, and possibly the type of venue (indoor/outdoor).

Conclusion: These factors potentially represent a basis for a policy-making framework for MG restrictions in the event of a severe pandemic.

Public perceptions of pandemic influenza resource allocation: a deliberative forum using Grid/Group analysis

The emergence of virulent avian influenza A subtypes with potential to evolve into novel human subtypes prompted directives from the World Health Organisation recommending that countries prepare for a pandemic. In response the Australian government developed the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza (AHMPPI), which includes strategies to contain and/or manage a pandemic. To implement these strategies successfully, community compliance is necessary. Our qualitative study investigated, through a deliberative forum, the extent to which the antiviral drug and vaccine allocation of the AHMPPI corresponds with community views about the priority groups. We used Mary Douglas' Grid/Group analysis to analyse the results, which suggested that the AHMPPI's allocation strategy corresponds well with community views with both based on a hierarchical structure. There are some differences concerning community involvement in the decision process and information provision to the public, for which our study provides recommendations.