Perspectives of Australian policy-makers on the potential benefits and risks of technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance - a modified Delphi survey

Evidence gaps and challenges in maintaining and increasing vaccine uptake: A Delphi survey with Australian stakeholders

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is crucial for preventing and managing infectious diseases. In the context of the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic landscape, this paper examines the perceptions of immunisation implementers and policymakers to uncover the challenges and evidence gaps in routine immunisation efforts.

METHODS

We conducted an online two-round modified Delphi survey with immunisation experts, senior public servants, policymakers, policy advisory groups, and representatives from peak bodies from across Australia. We asked respondents to outline what they see as the greatest challenges to increasing and maintaining uptake of recommended vaccines in Australia; the most difficult aspects of their work in vaccination; the largest evidence gaps in vaccine uptake; and the kinds of social and behavioural research they would like to see prioritised.

RESULTS

The two most important challenges for increasing and maintaining vaccine uptake were effectively communicating the benefits of vaccines to parents and the public and ensuring accessible and affordable vaccination services. Participants strongly agreed that 'communication about the importance of vaccination' was the most difficult aspect of their work. Consistently important was the need to better engage specific population groups, such as culturally and linguistically diverse people, pregnant people, at risk cohorts, and health care providers. Social and behavioural research about 'how to effectively address hesitancy' was ranked highly among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this project help provide an understanding of the behavioural, social, ethical, and policy knowledge needs for immunisation policy and implementation in Australia. To respond to vaccine challenges, increase coverage and build public trust in vaccination, policymakers and governments should incorporate social research into vaccination programmes. SO WHAT?: Australia is preparing to launch a Centre for Disease Control. This study demonstrates the importance of integrating social, behavioural, ethical, and policy research into the fabric of this new enterprise. It underlines the need to capacity-build a workforce able to deliver high-quality research in these areas, address the needs of immunisation implementers and policymakers, and achieve good outcomes for Australians.

Does Legislation Impede Data Sharing in Australia Across Institutions and Jurisdictions? A Scoping Review

In Australia, regulations governing data, including formal legislation and policies promulgated by private and public agencies, are often seen as a barrier to data sharing. This sharing can include between institutions, as well as across jurisdictional borders in a federated jurisdiction such as Australia. In some cases, these regulations place a barrier to sharing data across borders or between institutions without a prerequisite requirement. In other cases, these regulations may be perceived as a justification not to share data. The objective of this review was to analyse published literature from Australia to see what regulations were used to justify not sharing data, along with any other factors that might discourage data sharing. We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for empirical and policy articles discussing data sharing in Australia. We then filtered these results via abstract and conducted a full text assessment to include 33 articles for analysis. Although there are a few areas of notable regulatory divergence with respect to legislation governing health data, most regulations in Australia are relatively consistent. Further, the absence of uniform ethics approval between sites in different states was frequently cited as a barrier to data sharing.

State Policies that Impact the Design of Children's Mental Health Services: A Modified Delphi Study

To identify the state-level policies and policy domains that state policymakers and advocates perceive as most important for positively impacting the use of children's mental health services (CMHS). We used a modified Delphi technique (i.e., two rounds of questionnaires and an interview) during Spring 2021 to elicit perceptions among state mental health agency officials and advocates (n = 28) from twelve states on state policies that impact the use of CMHS. Participants rated a list of pre-specified policies on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 7 = extremely important) in the following policy domains: insurance coverage and limits, mental health services, school and social. Participants added nine policies to the initial list of 24 policies. The "school" policy domain was perceived as the most important, while the "social" policy domain was perceived as the least important after the first questionnaire and the second most important policy domain after the second questionnaire. The individual policies perceived as most important were school-based mental health services, state mental health parity, and Medicaid reimbursement rates. Key stakeholders in CMHS should leverage this group of policies to understand the current policy landscape in their state and to identify gaps in policy domains and potential policy opportunities to create a more comprehensive system to address children's mental health from a holistic, evidence-based policymaking perspective.

Ethics, Integrity, and Retributions of Digital Detection Surveillance Systems for Infectious Diseases: Systematic Literature Review

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the importance of the deployment of digital detection surveillance systems to support early warning and monitoring of infectious diseases. These opportunities create a “double-edge sword,” as the ethical governance of such approaches often lags behind technological achievements.

Objective

The aim was to investigate ethical issues identified from utilizing artificial intelligence–augmented surveillance or early warning systems to monitor and detect common or novel infectious disease outbreaks.

Methods

In a number of databases, we searched relevant articles that addressed ethical issues of using artificial intelligence, digital surveillance systems, early warning systems, and/or big data analytics technology for detecting, monitoring, or tracing infectious diseases according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and further identified and analyzed them with a theoretical framework.

Results

This systematic review identified 29 articles presented in 6 major themes clustered under individual, organizational, and societal levels, including awareness of implementing digital surveillance, digital integrity, trust, privacy and confidentiality, civil rights, and governance. While these measures were understandable during a pandemic, the public had concerns about receiving inadequate information; unclear governance frameworks; and lack of privacy protection, data integrity, and autonomy when utilizing infectious disease digital surveillance. The barriers to engagement could widen existing health care disparities or digital divides by underrepresenting vulnerable and at-risk populations, and patients’ highly sensitive data, such as their movements and contacts, could be exposed to outside sources, impinging significantly upon basic human and civil rights.

Conclusions

Our findings inform ethical considerations for service delivery models for medical practitioners and policymakers involved in the use of digital surveillance for infectious disease spread, and provide a basis for a global governance structure.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42021259180; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=259180

Public health practitioner perspectives on dealing with measles outbreaks if high anti-vaccination sentiment is present

Background

Communities with low vaccination rates are at greater risk during outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases. Most Australian parents support vaccines, but some refuse and are often judged harshly by their community, especially during an outbreak. We sought the perspectives of Australian public health experts on the key issues faced when managing a measles outbreak in an area with high anti-vaccination sentiment.

Methods

A measles outbreak scenario formed the basis of a 3-round modified Delphi process to identify key practitioner concerns in relation to parents/carers who don’t follow the recommended vaccination schedule. We surveyed a range of professionals in the field: policymakers, infectious disease experts, immunisation program staff, and others involved in delivering childhood vaccinations, to identify key priorities when responding to an outbreak in a community with low vaccination coverage.

Results

Findings indicate that responses to measles outbreaks in communities with high anti-vaccination sentiment are motivated by concerns about the potential for a much larger outbreak event. The highest operational priority is to isolate infected children. The two most highly ranked practical issues are mistrust from non-vaccinating members of the local region and combatting misinformation about vaccines. Trying to change minds of such individuals is not a priority during an outbreak, nor is vaccinating their children. Using media and social media to provide information about the outbreak and measures the public can take to limit the spread of the disease was a focus.

Conclusions

Our findings provide a deeper understanding of the challenges faced during an outbreak and priorities for communicating with communities where there is a high level of anti-vaccination sentiment. In the context of a global pandemic, the results of this study also have implications for managing public health responses to community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as COVID-19 vaccines becomes widely available.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10604-3.

Changes in public preferences for technologically enhanced surveillance following the COVID-19 pandemic: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

As governments attempt to navigate a path out of COVID-19 restrictions, robust evidence is essential to inform requirements for public acceptance of technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance systems. We examined the value of core surveillance system attributes to the Australian public, before and during the early stages of the current pandemic.

DESIGN

A discrete choice experiment was conducted in Australia with a representative group of respondents, before and after the WHO declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. We identified and investigated the relative importance of seven attributes associated with technologically enhanced disease surveillance: respect for personal autonomy; privacy/confidentiality; data certainty/confidence; data security; infectious disease mortality prevention; infectious disease morbidity prevention; and attribution of (causal) responsibility. Specifically, we explored how the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak influenced participant responses.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

2008 Australians (general public) completed the experiment: 793 before COVID-19 outbreak onset (mean age 45.9 years, 50.2% male) and 1215 after onset (mean age 47.2 years, 49% male).

RESULTS

All seven attributes significantly influenced respondents' preferences for communicable disease surveillance systems. After onset, participants demonstrated greater preference for a surveillance system that could prevent a higher number of illnesses and deaths, and were less concerned about their personal autonomy. However, they also increased their preference for a system with high data security.

CONCLUSIONS

Public acceptance of technology-based communicable disease surveillance is situation dependent. During an epidemic, there is likely to be greater tolerance of technologically enhanced disease surveillance systems that result in restrictions on personal activity if such systems can prevent high morbidity and mortality. However, this acceptance of lower personal autonomy comes with an increased requirement to ensure data security. These findings merit further research as the pandemic unfolds and strategies are put in place that enable individuals and societies to live with SARS-CoV-2 endemicity.

Ethical challenges in pathogen sequencing: a systematic scoping review

Background: Going forward, the routine implementation of genomic surveillance activities and outbreak investigation is to be expected. We sought to systematically identify the emerging ethical challenges; and to systematically assess the gaps in ethical frameworks or thinking and identify where further work is needed to solve practical challenges.

Methods: We systematically searched indexed academic literature from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science from 2000 to April 2019 for peer-reviewed articles that substantively engaged in discussion of ethical issues in the use of pathogen genome sequencing technologies for diagnostic, surveillance and outbreak investigation.

Results: 28 articles were identified; nine United States, five United Kingdom, five The Netherlands, three Canada, two Switzerland, one Australia, two South Africa, and one Italy. Eight articles were specifically about the use of sequencing in HIV. Eleven were not specific to a particular disease. Results were organized into four themes: tensions between public and private interests; difficulties with translation from research to clinical and public health practice; the importance of community trust and support; equity and global partnerships; and the importance of context.

Conclusion: While pathogen sequencing has the potential to be transformative for public health, there are a number of key ethical issues that must be addressed, particularly around the conditions of use for pathogen sequence data. Ethical standards should be informed by public values, and further empirical work investigating stakeholders’ views are required. Development in the field should also be under-pinned by a strong commitment to values of justice, in particular global health equity.

Community perspectives on the benefits and risks of technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance systems: a report on four community juries

Background

Outbreaks of infectious disease cause serious and costly health and social problems. Two new technologies – pathogen whole genome sequencing (WGS) and Big Data analytics – promise to improve our capacity to detect and control outbreaks earlier, saving lives and resources. However, routinely using these technologies to capture more detailed and specific personal information could be perceived as intrusive and a threat to privacy.

Method

Four community juries were convened in two demographically different Sydney municipalities and two regional cities in New South Wales, Australia (western Sydney, Wollongong, Tamworth, eastern Sydney) to elicit the views of well-informed community members on the acceptability and legitimacy of:

making pathogen WGS and linked administrative data available for public health research

using this information in concert with data linkage and machine learning to enhance communicable disease surveillance systems

Fifty participants of diverse backgrounds, mixed genders and ages were recruited by random-digit-dialling and topic-blinded social-media advertising. Each jury was presented with balanced factual evidence supporting different expert perspectives on the potential benefits and costs of technologically enhanced public health research and communicable disease surveillance and given the opportunity to question experts.

Results

Almost all jurors supported data linkage and WGS on routinely collected patient isolates for the purposes of public health research, provided standard de-identification practices were applied. However, allowing this information to be operationalised as a syndromic surveillance system was highly contentious with three juries voting in favour, and one against by narrow margins. For those in favour, support depended on several conditions related to system oversight and security being met. Those against were concerned about loss of privacy and did not trust Australian governments to run secure and effective systems.

Conclusions

Participants across all four events strongly supported the introduction of data linkage and pathogenomics to public health research under current research governance structures. Combining pathogen WGS with event-based data surveillance systems, however, is likely to be controversial because of a lack of public trust, even when the potential public health benefits are clear. Any suggestion of private sector involvement or commercialisation of WGS or surveillance data was unanimously rejected.