What is the role of primary care in the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out and the barriers and facilitators to an equitable vaccine roll-out? A rapid scoping review of nine jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to: (1) examine the experience of nine global jurisdictions that engaged primary care providers (PCPs) to administer COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic; (2) describe how vaccine hesitancy and principles of equity were incorporated in the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out strategies and (3) identify the barriers and facilitators to the vaccine roll-out. DESIGN: Rapid scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searches took place in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and PsycINFO, Google, and the websites of national health departments. Searches and analyses took place from May 2021 to July 2021. RESULTS: Sixty-two documents met the inclusion criteria (35=grey literature; 56% and 27=peer reviewed; 44%). This review found that the vaccine distribution approach started at hospitals in almost all jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, PCPs were engaged at the beginning, and the majority included PCPs over time. In many jurisdictions, equity was considered in the prioritisation policies for various marginalised communities. However, vaccine hesitancy was not explicitly considered in the design of vaccine distribution approaches. The barriers to the roll-out of vaccines included personal, organisational and contextual factors. The vaccine roll-out strategy was facilitated by establishing policies and processes for pandemic preparedness, well-established and coordinated information systems, primary care interventions, adequate supply of providers, education and training of providers, and effective communications strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical evidence is lacking on the impact of a primary care-led vaccine distribution approach on vaccine hesitancy, adoption and equity. Future vaccine distribution approaches need to be informed by further research evaluating vaccine distribution approaches and their impact on patient and population outcomes.

Identifying priority challenges and solutions for COVID-19 vaccine delivery in low- and middle-income countries: A modified Delphi study

Background The rapid implementation of global COVID-19 vaccination programs has surfaced many challenges and inequities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, there continues to be a lack of consensus on which challenges are global priorities for action, and how to best respond to them. This study uses consensus-based methods to identify and rank the most important challenges and solutions for implementation of COVID-19 vaccination programs in LMICs. Methods We conducted a three-round modified Delphi study with a global panel of vaccine delivery experts. In Round I, panelists identified broad topical challenges and solutions. Responses were collated and coded into distinct items. Through two further rounds of structured, iterative surveys panelists reviewed and ranked the identified items. Responses were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to achieve consensus on the most important COVID-19 vaccine delivery challenges and solutions. Results Of the 426 invited panelists, 96 completed Round I, 56 completed Round II, and 39 completed Round III. Across all three rounds there was equal representation by gender, and panelists reported work experience in all World Bank regions and across a variety of content areas and organizations. Of the 64 initially identified items, the panel achieved consensus on three challenges and 10 solutions. Challenges fell under themes of structural factors and infrastructure and human and material resources, while solutions also included items within themes of communication, community engagement, and access and planning, processes, and operations. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccine delivery is challenged by long-standing and structural inequities that disadvantage health service delivery in LMICs. These findings can, and should, be used by global health organizations to efficiently and optimally direct resources to respond to these key challenges and solutions.

Global inequity creates local insufficiency: A qualitative study of COVID-19 vaccine implementation challenges in low-and-middle-income countries

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified pre-existing challenges to health promotion and care across the world, and particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This qualitative study draws on data from a panel of immunisation experts and uses a novel framework of vaccine delivery domains to explore perspectives from those who live and work in these settings on the challenges to implementing COVID-19 vaccine programs in LMICs. Methods We conducted a thematic content analysis of 96 participant free text replies to questions from Round I of a three-round Delphi consensus study amongst global experts on COVID-19 vaccine implementation. Results Participant responses highlighted challenges to vaccine program implementation including issues related to equity;governance, decision-making, and financing;regulatory structures, planning, and coordination;prioritisation, demand generation, and communication;vaccine, cold chain, logistics, and infrastructure;service delivery, human resources, and supplies;and surveillance, monitoring, and evaluation. Conclusion We reflect on our findings in light of global efforts to address vaccine inequity and emphasise three key areas salient to improving vaccination efforts during novel infectious disease outbreaks: 1) Ensuring safe and sustainable service delivery in communities and at points of care;2) Strengthening systems for end-to-end delivery of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and essential supplies;3) Transforming structural paradigms towards vaccine equity.

Global inequity creates local insufficiency: A qualitative study of COVID-19 vaccine implementation challenges in low-and-middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified pre-existing challenges to health promotion and care across the world, and particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This qualitative study draws on data from a panel of immunisation experts and uses a novel framework of vaccine delivery domains to explore perspectives from those who live and work in these settings on the challenges to implementing COVID-19 vaccine programs in LMICs. METHODS: We conducted a thematic content analysis of 96 participant free text replies to questions from Round I of a three-round Delphi consensus study amongst global experts on COVID-19 vaccine implementation. RESULTS: Participant responses highlighted challenges to vaccine program implementation including issues related to equity; governance, decision-making, and financing; regulatory structures, planning, and coordination; prioritisation, demand generation, and communication; vaccine, cold chain, logistics, and infrastructure; service delivery, human resources, and supplies; and surveillance, monitoring, and evaluation. CONCLUSION: We reflect on our findings in light of global efforts to address vaccine inequity and emphasise three key areas salient to improving vaccination efforts during novel infectious disease outbreaks: 1) Ensuring safe and sustainable service delivery in communities and at points of care; 2) Strengthening systems for end-to-end delivery of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and essential supplies; 3) Transforming structural paradigms towards vaccine equity.

Identifying priority challenges and solutions for COVID-19 vaccine delivery in low- and middle-income countries: A modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The rapid implementation of global COVID-19 vaccination programs has surfaced many challenges and inequities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, there continues to be a lack of consensus on which challenges are global priorities for action, and how to best respond to them. This study uses consensus-based methods to identify and rank the most important challenges and solutions for implementation of COVID-19 vaccination programs in LMICs. METHODS: We conducted a three-round modified Delphi study with a global panel of vaccine delivery experts. In Round I, panelists identified broad topical challenges and solutions. Responses were collated and coded into distinct items. Through two further rounds of structured, iterative surveys panelists reviewed and ranked the identified items. Responses were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to achieve consensus on the most important COVID-19 vaccine delivery challenges and solutions. RESULTS: Of the 426 invited panelists, 96 completed Round I, 56 completed Round II, and 39 completed Round III. Across all three rounds there was equal representation by gender, and panelists reported work experience in all World Bank regions and across a variety of content areas and organizations. Of the 64 initially identified items, the panel achieved consensus on three challenges and 10 solutions. Challenges fell under themes of structural factors and infrastructure and human and material resources, while solutions also included items within themes of communication, community engagement, and access and planning, processes, and operations. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine delivery is challenged by long-standing and structural inequities that disadvantage health service delivery in LMICs. These findings can, and should, be used by global health organizations to efficiently and optimally direct resources to respond to these key challenges and solutions.

Virtually-delivered Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (SKY) for Canadian veterans with PTSD: A study protocol for a nation-wide effectiveness and implementation evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) remains a significant treatment challenge among Canadian veterans. Currently accessible pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for PTSD often do not lead to resolution of PTSD as a categorical diagnosis and have significant non-response rates. Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (SKY), a complementary and integrative health (CIH) intervention, can improve symptoms of PTSD. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this intervention has pivoted to virtual delivery and may be reaching new sets of participants who face multiple barriers to care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of virtually delivered Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (SKY) on decreasing PTSD symptom severity, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and pain, and improving quality of life in Canadian veterans affected by PTSD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a mixed-methods approach guided by the RE-AIM framework, we will conduct a hybrid type II effectiveness and implementation study of virtually delivered Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (SKY) for Canadian veterans. Effectiveness will be evaluated by comparing virtually delivered SKY to a waitlist control in a single-blinded (investigator and data analyst) randomized controlled trial (RCT). Change in PTSD symptoms (PCL-5) is the primary outcome and quality of life (SF-36), symptoms of depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and pain (BPI) are secondary outcomes. The SKY intervention will be conducted over a 6-week period with assessments at baseline, 6-weeks, 12-weeks, and 30 weeks. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the intervention will be evaluated through one-on-one semi-structured interviews with RCT participants, SKY instructors, health professionals, and administrators that work with veterans. DISCUSSION: This is the first investigation of the virtual delivery of SKY for PTSD in veterans and aims to determine if the intervention is effective and implementable at scale.

Clinical public health: harnessing the best of both worlds in sickness and in health. / Santé publique clinique : exploiter le meilleur des deux mondes pour la santé comme pour le traitement des maladies.

INTRODUCTION: Effective, sustained collaboration between clinical and public health professionals can lead to improved individual and population health. The concept of clinical public health promotes collaboration between clinical medicine and public health to address complex, real-world health challenges. In this commentary, we describe the concept of clinical public health, the types of complex problems that require collaboration between individual and population health, and the barriers towards and applications of clinical public health that have become evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE: The focus of clinical medicine on the health of individuals and the aims of public health to promote and protect the health of populations are complementary. Interdisciplinary collaborations at both levels of health interventions are needed to address complex health problems. However, there is a need to address the disciplinary, cultural and financial barriers to achieving greater and sustained collaboration. Recent successes, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, provide a model for such collaboration between clinicians and public health practitioners. CONCLUSION: A public health approach that fosters ongoing collaboration between clinical and public health professionals in the face of complex health threats will have greater impact than the sum of the parts.

INTRODUCTION: Une collaboration efficace et soutenue entre cliniciens et professionnels en santé publique peut améliorer la santé des individus et la santé de la population. Le concept de santé publique clinique favorise cette collaboration entre médecine clinique et santé publique et permet de relever des défis complexes en matière de santé. Dans ce commentaire, nous décrivons le concept de santé publique clinique, les types de problèmes complexes qui nécessitent une collaboration entre les professionnels responsables de la santé des individus et ceux responsables de la santé de la population, de même que les obstacles à la santé publique clinique et les applications de la santé publique clinique qui ont émergé pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. ARGUMENTAIRE: Il existe une complémentarité entre la médecine clinique, qui est axée sur la santé des individus, et la santé publique, qui est axée sur la promotion et la protection de la santé des populations. Une collaboration entre ces deux disciplines est nécessaire pour résoudre les problèmes de santé complexes. Pour ce faire, toutefois, il convient de s'attaquer aux obstacles relatifs aux disciplines, ainsi qu'aux obstacles culturels et financiers qui empêchent une collaboration accrue et durable en la matière. Les succès récents, particulièrement durant la pandémie de COVID-19, constituent un modèle de collaboration de ce type entre cliniciens et praticiens en santé publique. CONCLUSION: Une approche en matière de santé publique qui favorise une collaboration permanente entre cliniciens et professionnels en santé publique pour lutter contre des menaces sanitaires complexes aura plus d'impact que la somme de ses parties.

The Granting of Emergency Use Designation to COVID-19 Candidate Vaccines : Implications for COVID-19 Vaccine Trials

An efficacious COVID-19 vaccine is currently the world's leading research priority. Several nations have indicated that if there is a compelling case for use of a vaccine before it is licensed, they would be prepared to authorise its emergency use or conditional approval on public health grounds. As of Dec 1, 2020, several developers of leading COVID-19 candidate vaccines have indicated that they have applied, or intend to apply, for emergency authorisation for their vaccines. Should candidate vaccines attain emergency use designation and be programmatically deployed before their phase 3 trials conclude, such a strategy could have far reaching consequences for COVID-19 vaccine research and the effective control of the COVID-19 pandemic. These issues merit careful consideration.

Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The exceptional production of research evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic required deployment of scientists to act in advisory roles to aid policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions. The unprecedented breadth, scale and duration of the pandemic provides an opportunity to understand how science advisors experience and mitigate challenges associated with insufficient, evolving and/or conflicting evidence to inform public health decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To explore critically the challenges for advising evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in pandemic contexts, particularly around non-pharmaceutical control measures, from the perspective of experts advising policy-makers during COVID-19 globally. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 27 scientific experts and advisors who are/were engaged in COVID-19 EIDM representing four WHO regions and 11 countries (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ghana, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Sweden, Uganda, UK, USA) from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants informed decision-making at various and multiple levels of governance, including local/city (n=3), state/provincial (n=8), federal or national (n=20), regional or international (n=3) and university-level advising (n=3). Following each interview, we conducted member checks with participants and thematically analysed interview data using NVivo for Mac software. RESULTS: Findings from this study indicate multiple overarching challenges to pandemic EIDM specific to interpretation and translation of evidence, including the speed and influx of new, evolving, and conflicting evidence; concerns about scientific integrity and misinterpretation of evidence; the limited capacity to assess and produce evidence, and adapting evidence from other contexts; multiple forms of evidence and perspectives needed for EIDM; the need to make decisions quickly and under conditions of uncertainty; and a lack of transparency in how decisions are made and applied. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the urgent need for global EIDM guidance that countries can adapt for in-country decisions as well as coordinated global response to future pandemics.

R&D during public health emergencies: the value(s) of trust, governance and collaboration.

In January 2021, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO, warned that the world was 'on the brink of a catastrophic moral failure [that] will be paid with lives and livelihoods in the world's poorest countries'. We are now past the brink. Many high-income countries have vaccinated their populations (which, in some cases, includes third and even fourth doses) and are loosening public health and social measures, while low-income and middle-income countries are struggling to secure enough supply of vaccines to administer first doses. While injustices abound in the deployment and allocation of COVID-19 vaccines, therapies and diagnostics, an area that has hitherto received inadequate ethical scrutiny concerns the upstream structures and mechanisms that govern and facilitate the research and development (R&D) associated with these novel therapies, vaccines and diagnostics. Much can be learnt by looking to past experiences with the rapid deployment of R&D in the context of public health emergencies. Yet, much of the 'learning' from past epidemics and outbreaks has largely focused on technical or technological innovations and overlooked the essential role of important normative developments; namely, the importance of fostering multiple levels of trust, strong and fair governance, and broad research collaborations. In this paper, we argue that normative lessons pertaining to the conduct of R&D during the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa provide important insights for how R&D ought to proceed to combat the current COVID-19 pandemic and future infectious disease threats.

A framework for critical care triage during a major surge in critical illness.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions experienced surges in demand for critical care that strained or overwhelmed their healthcare system's ability to respond. A major surge necessitates a deviation from usual practices, including difficult decisions about how to allocate critical care resources. We present a framework to guide these decisions in the hope of saving the most lives as ethically as possible, while concurrently respecting, protecting, and fulfilling legal and human rights obligations. It was developed in Ontario in 2020-2021 through an iterative consultation process with diverse participants, but was adopted in other jurisdictions with some modifications. The framework features three levels of triage depending on the degree of the surge, and a system for prioritizing patients based on their short-term mortality risk following the onset of critical illness. It also includes processes aimed at promoting consistency and fairness across a region where many hospitals are expected to apply the same framework. No triage framework should ever be considered "final," and there is a need for further research to examine ethical issues related to critical care triage and to increase the extent and quality of evidence to inform critical care triage.

RéSUMé: Pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, de nombreuses régions ont connu une augmentation de la demande de soins intensifs qui a mis à rude épreuve ou dépassé la capacité de réponse du système de santé existant. Lors de toute augmentation importante de cette demande, un écart par rapport aux pratiques habituelles est nécessaire, y compris la prise de décisions difficiles sur la façon d'allouer les ressources en soins intensifs. Nous présentons un algorithme pour guider ces décisions dans l'espoir de sauver le plus de vies possibles et ce, de la manière la plus éthique possible, tout en respectant, en protégeant et en remplissant les obligations légales et en matière de droits de l'homme. Cet algorithme a été élaboré en Ontario en 2020-2021 dans le cadre d'un processus de consultation itératif avec divers participants, mais a été adopté dans d'autres juridictions avec quelques modifications. L'algorithme comprend trois niveaux de triage en fonction du degré d'augmentation de la demande, ainsi qu'un système permettant de prioriser les patients en fonction de leur risque de mortalité à court terme après l'apparition d'une maladie grave. Il comporte également des processus visant à promouvoir l'uniformité et l'équité dans une région où de nombreux hôpitaux vont appliquer le même algorithme. Aucun algorithme de triage ne devrait jamais être considéré comme « définitif ¼, et il est nécessaire d'approfondir les recherches pour examiner les questions éthiques liées au triage aux soins intensifs et accroître l'étendue et la qualité des données probantes afin d'éclairer le triage aux soins intensifs.

WHO guidance on COVID-19 vaccine trial designs in the context of authorized COVID-19 vaccines and expanding global access: Ethical considerations.

While the degree of COVID-19 vaccine accessibility and uptake varies at both national and global levels, increasing vaccination coverage raises questions regarding the standard of prevention that ought to apply to different settings where COVID-19 vaccine trials are hosted. A WHO Expert Group has developed guidance on the ethical implications of conducting placebo-controlled trials in the context of expanding global COVID-19 vaccine coverage. The guidance also considers alternative trial designs to placebo controlled trials in the context of prototype vaccines, modified vaccines, and next generation vaccines.

Governing the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator: towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability.

The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.

Assessing the Implementation and Effectiveness of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Tool for Older Adults With Complex Care Needs: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Goal-oriented care is being adopted to deliver person-centered primary care to older adults with multimorbidity and complex care needs. Although this model holds promise, its implementation remains a challenge. Digital health solutions may enable processes to improve adoption; however, they require evaluation to determine feasibility and impact. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile app and portal system, designed to enable goal-oriented care delivery in interprofessional primary care practices. The research questions driving this study are as follows: Does ePRO improve quality of life and self-management in older adults with complex needs? What mechanisms are likely driving observed outcomes? METHODS: A multimethod, pragmatic randomized controlled trial using a stepped-wedge design and ethnographic case studies was conducted over a 15-month period in 6 comprehensive primary care practices across Ontario with a target enrollment of 176 patients. The 6 practices were randomized into either early (3-month control period; 12-month intervention) or late (6-month control period; 9-month intervention) groups. The primary outcome measure of interest was the Assessment of Quality of Life-4D (AQoL-4D). Data were collected at baseline and at 3 monthly intervals for the duration of the trial. Ethnographic data included observations and interviews with patients and providers at the midpoint and end of the intervention. Outcome data were analyzed using linear models conducted at the individual level, accounting for cluster effects at the practice level, and ethnographic data were analyzed using qualitative description and framework analysis methods. RESULTS: Recruitment challenges resulted in fewer sites and participants than expected; of the 176 target, only 142 (80.6%) patients were identified as eligible to participate because of lower-than-expected provider participation and fewer-than-expected patients willing to participate or perceived as ready to engage in goal-setting. Of the 142 patients approached, 45 (32%) participated. Patients set a variety of goals related to self-management, mental health, social health, and overall well-being. Owing to underpowering, the impact of ePRO on quality of life could not be definitively assessed; however, the intervention group, ePRO plus usual care (mean 15.28, SD 18.60) demonstrated a nonsignificant decrease in quality of life (t24=-1.20; P=.24) when compared with usual care only (mean 21.76, SD 2.17). The ethnographic data reveal a complex implementation process in which the meaningfulness (or coherence) of the technology to individuals' lives and work acted as a key driver of adoption and tool appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: This trial experienced many unexpected and significant implementation challenges related to recruitment and engagement. Future studies could be improved through better alignment of the research methods and intervention to the complex and diverse clinical settings, dynamic goal-oriented care process, and readiness of provider and patient participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02917954; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02917954.

Mal/adaptations: A qualitative evidence synthesis of opioid agonist therapy during major disruptions.

BACKGROUND: Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has been severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The risks of opioid withdrawal, overdose, and diversion have increased, so there is an urgent need to adapt OAT to best support people who use drugs (PWUD). This review examines the views and experiences of PWUD, health care providers, and health system administrators on OAT during major disruptions to medical care to inform appropriate health system responses during the current pandemic and beyond. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. We searched three comprehensive datasets for qualitative and mixed-methods studies that examined OAT in the context of major disruptions such as natural disasters, and analyzed included studies using thematic analysis and the constant comparative method. We used conceptual frameworks of health systems resilience and adaptive systems to interpret our findings. RESULTS: We included 10 studies published between 2002 and 2020 that examined OAT in the context of hurricanes, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks. We organized our results into three themes: uncertainty, inconsistency, and vulnerability; regulatory inflexibility; and lack of coordination. The highly regulated but poorly coordinated systems of OAT provision lacked flexibility to adapt to major disruptions, thereby manufacturing vulnerability for both PWUD and health workers. CONCLUSIONS: OAT programs must be resilient and adaptable to face major disruptions while maintaining quality care. Our findings provide guidance to develop and implement innovative strategies that increase the adaptive potential of OAT programs while focusing on the needs of PWUD.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.