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.

New Zealand maternity and midwifery services and the COVID-19 response: A systematic scoping review.

PROBLEM: COVID-19 guidance from professional and health organisations created uncertainty leading to professional and personal stress impacting on midwives providing continuity of care in New Zealand (NZ). The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in massive amounts of international and national information and guidance. This guidance was often conflicting and not suited to New Zealand midwifery. AIM: To examine and map the national and international guidance and information provided to midwifery regarding COVID-19 and foreground learnt lessons for future similar crises. METHODS: A systematic scoping review informed by Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework. A range of sources from grey and empirical literature was identified and 257 sources included. FINDINGS: Four categories were identified and discussed: (1) guidance for provision of maternity care in the community; (2) guidance for provision of primary labour and birth care; (3) Guidance for midwifery care to women/wahine with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 infection, including screening processes and management of neonates of infected women/wahine (4) Guidance for midwives on protecting self and own families and whanau (extended family) from COVID-19 exposure. CONCLUSION: Guidance was mainly targeted and tailored for hospital-based services. This was at odds with the NZ context, where primary continuity of care underpins practice. It is evident that those providing continuity of care constantly needed to navigate an evolving situation to mitigate interruptions and restrictions to midwifery care, often without fully knowing the personal risk to themselves and their own families. A key message is the need for a single source of evidence-based guidance, regularly updated and timestamped to show where advice changes over time.