Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Humanities & Social Sciences Communications ; 8(1), 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1440505

ABSTRACT

In responding to the widespread impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have proposed and implemented documentation policies that confer varying levels of freedoms or restrictions (e.g., ability to travel) based on individuals’ infection status or potential immunity. Most discussions around immunity- or infection-based documentation policies have focused on scientific plausibility, economic benefit, and challenges relating to ethics and equity. As COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out, attention has turned to confirmation of immunity and how documentation such as vaccine certificates or immunity passports can be implemented. However, the contextual inequities and local variabilities interacting with COVID-19 related documentation policies hinder a one-size-fits-all approach. In this Comment, we argue that social science perspectives can and should provide additional insight into these issues, through a diverse range of current and historical examples. This would enable policymakers and researchers to better understand and mitigate current and longer-term differential impacts of COVID-19 immunity-based documentation policies in different contexts. Furthermore, social science research methods can uniquely provide feedback to inform adjustments to policy implementation in real-time and help to document how these policy measures are felt differently across communities, populations, and countries, potentially for years to come. This Comment, updated as of 15 August 2021, combines precedents established in historical disease outbreaks and current experiences with COVID-19 immunity-based documentation policies to highlight valuable lessons and an acute need for further social science research which should inform effective and context-appropriate future public health policy and action.

2.
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(1)2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1054669

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on political leadership around the world. Differences in how leaders address the pandemic through public messages have practical implications for building trust and an effective response within a country. METHODS: We analysed the speeches made by 20 heads of government around the world (Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Scotland, Sint Maarten, United Kingdom, United States and Taiwan) to highlight the differences between men and women leaders in discussing COVID-19. We used an inductive analytical approach, coding speeches for specific themes based on language and content. FINDINGS: Five primary themes emerged across a total of 122 speeches on COVID-19, made by heads of government: economics and financial relief, social welfare and vulnerable populations, nationalism, responsibility and paternalism, and emotional appeals. While all leaders described the economic impact of the pandemic, women spoke more frequently about the impact on the individual scale. Women leaders were also more often found describing a wider range of social welfare services, including: mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence. Both men and women from lower-resource settings described detailed financial relief and social welfare support that would impact the majority of their populations. While 17 of the 20 leaders used war metaphors to describe COVID-19 and the response, men largely used these with greater volume and frequency. CONCLUSION: While this analysis does not attempt to answer whether men or women are more effective leaders in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, it does provide insight into the rhetorical tools and types of language used by different leaders during a national and international crisis. This analysis provides additional evidence on the differences in political leaders' messages and priorities to inspire citizens' adhesion to the social contract in the adoption of response and recovery measures. However, it does not consider the influence of contexts, such as the public audience, on leaders' strategic communication approaches.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Government , Health Communication , Leadership , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Global Health , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Politics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors
3.
PLoS One ; 15(7): e0234827, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-827092

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The most important factor influencing maternal vaccination uptake is healthcare professional (HCP) recommendation. However, where data are available, one-third of pregnant women remain unvaccinated despite receiving a recommendation. Therefore, it is essential to understand the significance of other factors and distinguish between vaccines administered routinely and during outbreaks. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD 42019118299) to examine the strength of the relationships between identified factors and maternal vaccination uptake. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase Classic & Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, IBSS, LILACS, AfricaWideInfo, IMEMR, and Global Health databases for studies reporting factors that influence maternal vaccination. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) of being vaccinated by vaccine type. FINDINGS: We screened 17,236 articles and identified 120 studies from 30 countries for inclusion. Of these, 49 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The odds of receiving a pertussis or influenza vaccination were ten to twelve-times higher among pregnant women who received a recommendation from HCPs. During the 2009 influenza pandemic an HCP recommendation increased the odds of antenatal H1N1 vaccine uptake six times (OR 6.76, 95% CI 3.12-14.64, I2 = 92.00%). Believing there was potential for vaccine-induced harm had a negative influence on seasonal (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.44 I2 = 84.00%) and pandemic influenza vaccine uptake (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.29, I2 = 89.48%), reducing the odds of being vaccinated five-fold. Combined with our qualitative analysis the relationship between the belief in substantial disease risk and maternal seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination uptake was limited. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of an HCP recommendation during an outbreak, whilst still powerful, may be muted by other factors. This requires further research, particularly when vaccines are novel. Public health campaigns which centre on the protectiveness and safety of a maternal vaccine rather than disease threat alone may prove beneficial.


Subject(s)
Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Pregnant Women/psychology , Vaccination/psychology , Adult , Decision Making , Female , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Odds Ratio , Pregnancy , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
Disaster Med Public Health Prep ; : 1-8, 2020 Oct 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-811678

ABSTRACT

Strengthening health systems and maintaining essential service delivery during health emergencies response is critical for early detection and diagnosis, prompt treatment, and effective control of pandemics, including the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Health information systems (HIS) developed during recent Ebola outbreaks in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) provided opportunities to collect, analyze, and distribute data to inform both day-to-day and long-term policy decisions on outbreak preparedness. As COVID-19 continues to sweep across the globe, HIS and related technological advancements remain vital for effective and sustained data sharing, contact tracing, mapping and monitoring, community risk sensitization and engagement, preventive education, and timely preparedness and response activities. In reviewing literature of how HIS could have further supported mitigation of these Ebola outbreaks and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, 3 key areas were identified: governance and coordination, health systems infrastructure and resources, and community engagement. In this concept study, we outline scalable HIS lessons from recent Ebola outbreaks and early COVID-19 responses along these 3 domains, synthesizing recommendations to offer clear, evidence-based approaches on how to leverage HIS to strengthen the current pandemic response and foster community health systems resilience moving forward.

6.
Disaster Med Public Health Prep ; : 1-6, 2020 Jul 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-639411

ABSTRACT

Despite growing international attention, the anthropological and socio-behavioral elements of epidemics continue to be understudied and under resourced and lag behind the traditional outbreak response infrastructure. As seen in the current 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the importance of socio-behavioral elements in understanding transmission and facilitating control of many outbreak-prone pathogens, this is problematic. Beyond the recent strengthening of global outbreak response capacities and global health security measures, a greater focus on the socio-behavioral components of outbreak response is required. We add to the current discussion by briefly highlighting the importance of socio-behavior in the Ebola virus disease (EVD) response, and describe vital areas of future development, including methods for community engagement and validated frameworks for behavioral modeling and change in outbreak settings.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...