The use of preliminary scientific evidence in public health: a case study of XMRV

Why Does the Precautionary Principle Suffice for Blood Regulation?

Traditional approaches to blood regulation emphasise the precautionary principle and pursue zero-risk for viral transmission; these traditional approaches have usually followed tragedy, such as the HIV and hepatitis C infections that followed the use of factor VIII concentrates. However, a much more haphazard haemovigilance system operates for general adverse events. Such imprecise assessment of hazards prevents sound benefit-risk assessment, and for blood products this is further confounded by the fact that their efficacy has attracted little systematic study. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has now prompted the proposal of a convalescent plasma (CP) blood product. Clearly, mere freedom from infectious agents will not suffice in assessing CP, and an objective measure of efficacy, so as to permit formal benefit-risk analysis, is essential. This is both a scientific and an ethical demand, as has been the case for other experimental COVID-19 treatments. With special reference to COVID-19 CP, the well-recognized adverse events of transfusion-associated lung injury (TRALI) and transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO) will be important. Furthermore, not only efficacy but also product quality attributes (e.g., antibody titre) will have to be defined. Both of these are outside the traditional regulatory philosophy for blood products and are needed to truly assess the benefit-risk of this putative therapeutic product.

The public health community's use of social media for policy advocacy: a scoping review and suggestions to advance the field

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the extent and key characteristics of academic research and scholarship on the public health community's use of social media for policy advocacy purposes. This will enable an evaluation of extant research and provide insight into directions for future research.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a scoping review of academic literature.

METHODS

A scoping review of academic literature published between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2020 was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework. Boolean searches were conducted using a university library platform, which included databases, such as EBSCO host, Informit, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. Data were extracted using an a priori code frame, and publication, content, and disciplinary characteristics were analysed. The results of coding and screening comparison checks were within acceptable limits.

RESULTS

In total, 2672 works from around the world were identified and screened for inclusion. Twenty-two English language articles were included in the final analysis. The public health community's use of social media for policy advocacy purposes has largely been approached from a health perspective, despite research and scholarship about social media in communication and policy disciplines (among others). Reported research aims or questions emphasised functional rather than theoretical contributions. Most analysed works used empirical or case study-based methods and were produced by authors in Western geographies. Among the health issues discussed, tobacco and tobacco control were discussed most frequently. While recognising issues with social media, most publications framed social media as more of an opportunity than a problem.

CONCLUSIONS

The public health community's use of social media for policy advocacy purposes is an emerging field. There is considerable potential to expand scholarship and research in this field internationally, especially by integrating transdisciplinary knowledge and perspectives and by applying social media to foster policy change around identified global health challenges. Greater representation of authors from institutions in the Global South is also encouraged, as are applied and theoretical contributions.

Unexpected findings and promoting monocausal claims, a cautionary tale

Stories of serendipitous discoveries in medicine incorrectly imply that the path from an unexpected observation to major discovery is straightforward or guaranteed. In this paper, I examine a case from the field of research about chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). In Norway, an unexpected positive result during clinical care has led to the development of a research programme into the potential for the immunosuppressant drug rituximab to relieve the symptoms of CFS. The media and public have taken up researchers' speculations that their research results indicate a causal mechanism for CFS - consequently, patients now have great hope that 'the cause' of CFS has been found, and thus, a cure is sure to follow. I argue that a monocausal claim cannot be correctly asserted, either on the basis of the single case of an unexpected, although positive, result or on the basis of the empirical research that has followed up on that result. Further, assertion and promotion of this claim will have specific harmful effects: it threatens to inappropriately narrow the scope of research on CFS, might misdirect research altogether, and could directly and indirectly harm patients. Therefore, the CFS case presents a cautionary tale, illustrating the risks involved in drawing a theoretical hypothesis from an unexpected observation. Further, I draw attention to the tendency in contemporary clinical research with CFS to promote new research directions on the basis of reductive causal models of that syndrome. Particularly, in the case of CFS research, underdetermination and causal complexity undermine the potential value of a monocausal claim. In sum, when an unexpected finding occurs in clinical practice or medical research, the value of following up on that finding is to be found not in the projected value of a singular causal relationship inferred from the finding but rather in the process of research that follows.

Problems with precaution: the transfusion medicine experience

The precautionary principle is a dominant paradigm governing risk-based decision-making. Today, there are increasing pressures to re-examine aggressive precautionary approaches, and to assess how the principle should be applied in the modern system. In this paper, we examined three key applications of precautionary approaches in the field of transfusion medicine to provide insight into the risks and benefits of these approaches. The three case studies examined were the donor deferral policies to safeguard against transfusion transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, and, lastly, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. Characterization of precautionary applications was conducted using an embedded case study design. Our findings indicate that transfusion transmission mitigation strategies have become increasingly aggressive in the face of theoretical risks. In contrast, the review processes for implementation and reversal of precautionary policies have been slow, and historical donor deferral policies are still in place today. Application of precautionary approaches has proved challenging with both benefits and pitfalls. In light of emerging threats to the blood system, policy-makers should consider the implementation of frameworks to guide the appropriate application of precaution in transfusion medicine in the future.