The role of hesitancy and infrastructure in the equity and efficiency of COVID-19 vaccine administration.

After the first COVID-19 vaccines received emergency use authorization from the U.S. FDA in December 2020, U.S. states employed vaccine eligibility and administration plans (VEAPs) that determined when subgroups of residents would become eligible to receive the vaccine while the vaccine supply was still limited. During the implementation of these plans, public concern grew over whether the VEAPs and vaccine allocations from the federal government were resulting in an equitable and efficient vaccine distribution. In this study, we collected data on five states' VEAPs, federal vaccine allocations, vaccine administration, and vaccine hesitancy to assess the equity of vaccine access and vaccine administration efficiency that manifested during the campaign. Our results suggest that residents in states which opened eligibility to the vaccine sooner had more competition among residents to receive the vaccine than occurred in other states. Regardless of states' VEAPs, there was a consistent inefficiency in vaccine administration among all five states that could be attributed to both state and federal infrastructure deficits. A closer examination revealed a misalignment between federal vaccine allocations and the total eligible population in the states throughout the campaign, even when accounting for hesitancy. We conclude that in order to maximize the efficiency of future mass-vaccination campaigns, the federal and state governments should design adaptable allocation policies and eligibility plans that better match the true, real-time supply and demand for vaccines by accounting for vaccine hesitancy and manufacturing capacity. Further, we discuss the challenges of implementing such strategies.

Post-January 6th deplatforming reduced the reach of misinformation on Twitter.

The social media platforms of the twenty-first century have an enormous role in regulating speech in the USA and worldwide1. However, there has been little research on platform-wide interventions on speech2,3. Here we evaluate the effect of the decision by Twitter to suddenly deplatform 70,000 misinformation traffickers in response to the violence at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 (a series of events commonly known as and referred to here as 'January 6th'). Using a panel of more than 500,000 active Twitter users4,5 and natural experimental designs6,7, we evaluate the effects of this intervention on the circulation of misinformation on Twitter. We show that the intervention reduced circulation of misinformation by the deplatformed users as well as by those who followed the deplatformed users, though we cannot identify the magnitude of the causal estimates owing to the co-occurrence of the deplatforming intervention with the events surrounding January 6th. We also find that many of the misinformation traffickers who were not deplatformed left Twitter following the intervention. The results inform the historical record surrounding the insurrection, a momentous event in US history, and indicate the capacity of social media platforms to control the circulation of misinformation, and more generally to regulate public discourse.

Service Animals in Health Care Settings.

This JAMA Insights article reviews Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rules for patients, visitors, and other members of the public bringing service animals into health care settings.

Vaccination against COVID-19: the view of Brazilian federal judges.

The aim was to analyze the perception of Brazilian federal judges on the implications of COVID-19 vaccination. A study was carried out with Brazilian federal judges, who received a survey designed with multiple-choice questions on COVID-19 vaccination, covering topics such as its mandatory aspect, the application of coercive measures, hesitation to vaccinate, priority groups, the duties of Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa, acronym in Portuguese), the role of the Judiciary branch, and immunity passports. A total of 254 out of 1,300 federal judges from all states responded to the survey. Most respondents have a Bachelor's degree or a specialization (59.1%) and have been judges for more than 10 years (63.8%). A great majority of the judges (87.7%) agree with vaccine mandates for adults and for children and adolescents (66.1%). Over 75% of judges believe that all levels of government can impose sanctions on those who refuse to get vaccinated. The judges trust vaccination 93% of the time, 56.1% reject anti-vaccination movements, and 75.2% believe that Anvisa duties should be respected. The Judiciary branch actions concerning the COVID-19 pandemic are approved by 62.6% of judges, and 88.2% support immunity passports. There is a direct connection among mandatory vaccination, trust in the vaccine, and the adoption of immunity passports. Most federal judges agree with vaccine mandates for children and adults, support the application of sanctions for vaccination refusal, disapprove of anti-vaccination movements, agree with Anvisa's duties, and support judicial intervention in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Asymmetries between national articulation and the autonomy of state governments in implementing health technologies to fight COVID-19 in Argentina]. / Asimetrías entre la coordinación nacional y la autonomía de los gobiernos estatales en la adopción de tecnologías sanitarias frente a la COVID-19 en Argentina.

Argentina, as other countries, showed several public policies related to the health technologies implemented to fight and treat the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to analyze how articulation vs. cooperation and autonomy vs. division of powers between entities occurred in Argentina, exploring asymmetries between several entities in implementing public policies related to health technologies during the pandemic and the influences of other actors. For this, a documentary research was carried out related to 2020-2021 (technical reports published by the World Health Organization, national agencies and scientific societies, laws, court decisions, press, and research and in-depth interviews with members of the Argentine Ministries of Health). The processes and results of decision-making in the Ministries of Health were analyzed, outlining the coverage and orientations of each technology and the political party in power in the province. This study found heterogeneous results and processes between Ministries and disputes within them. It also observed the poor adherence to official guidelines due to technical-political criteria (power relations, social, media, academic, judiciary, and legislative pressure). Some cases showed a strong tension between the government and its opposition over the discussion of technologies. Each province in Argentina has autonomously defined its policies on health technologies for COVID-19, and decision-making in public administration was disorderly, complex, and non-linear during the pandemic.

En pandemia, en Argentina y en otros países se observó variabilidad en las políticas públicas implementadas sobre tecnologías sanitarias para prevención y tratamiento de la COVID-19. El objetivo fue analizar cómo se procesaron en Argentina los movimientos de coordinación vs. cooperación, y de autonomía vs. reparto de autoridad entre entidades, explorando asimetrías entre diferentes entidades en la implementación de políticas públicas sobre tecnologías sanitarias en pandemia y las influencias de otros actores. Se realizó una revisión documental del período 2020-2021 (informes técnicos publicados por la Organización Mundial de la Salud, organismos nacionales y sociedades científicas, leyes, fallos judiciales, prensa, encuestas y entrevistas en profundidad a miembros de los Ministerios de Salud de Argentina). Se indagó sobre procesos y resultados de la toma de decisiones en los Ministerios de Salud, mapeando la cobertura y recomendación de cada tecnología y el partido político provincial gobernante. Hubo heterogeneidad en resultados y procesos entre los Ministerios, y disputas en el interior de los mismos. La adherencia a recomendaciones oficiales fue baja, influyendo distintos criterios técnico-políticos (relaciones de poder, presión social, de los medios, académicos, poder Judicial y Legislativo). En algunos casos se observó una fuerte tensión entre oficialismo y oposición al partido gobernante a partir de la discusión sobre tecnologías. Cada provincia argentina definió sus políticas sobre tecnologías sanitarias para COVID-19 con autonomía, y la toma de decisiones en la administración pública en pandemia fue desordenada, compleja y no lineal.

Na Argentina, assim como em outros países, houve uma variabilidade de políticas públicas relacionadas às tecnologias de saúde implementadas no combate e tratamento da COVID-19 durante a pandemia. Este estudo buscou analisar como ocorreram a articulação vs. cooperação, e a autonomia vs. divisão de poderes entre as entidades na Argentina, explorando assimetrias entre diferentes entidades na implementação de políticas públicas relacionadas a tecnologias de saúde na pandemia, bem como as influências de outros atores. Para tanto, realizou-se uma pesquisa documental para o período de 2020-2021 (relatórios técnicos publicados pela Organização Mundial da Saúde, agências nacionais e sociedades científicas, leis, decisões judiciais, imprensa, pesquisas e entrevistas em profundidade com membros dos Ministérios da Saúde da Argentina). Os processos e os resultados da tomada de decisão nos Ministérios da Saúde foram analisados, traçando a cobertura e orientações de cada tecnologia e o partido político no poder na província. Observou-se uma heterogeneidade nos resultados e processos entre os Ministérios, e disputas em seu interior. Houve uma baixa adesão às orientações oficiais, influenciada por diferentes critérios técnico-políticos (relações de poder, pressão social, midiática, acadêmica, do poder Judiciário e do Legislativo). Em alguns casos, observou-se uma forte tensão entre governo e oposição a partir da discussão das tecnologias. Cada província da Argentina definiu suas políticas sobre tecnologias de saúde para a COVID-19 de forma autônoma, e a tomada de decisões na administração pública foi desordenada, complexa e não linear durante a pandemia.

Diversity of returnee executives' foreign experience and corporate social responsibility performance.

Top managers' past experiences (e.g., foreign experience) significantly impact their decision-making behavior, which may influence firms' sustainable development. The available literature, focusing on the role of the increase in the number of top executives with foreign experience in corporate social responsibility (CSR), yields mixed results. In order to clarify the ambiguous relationship between executive foreign experience and CSR, we empirically examine the effect of the geographic diversity of top executives' foreign experience on CSR. Based on a hand-collected dataset of the top management team's (TMT's) foreign experience, we demonstrate the positive impact of the geographic diversity of returnee executives' foreign experience on firms' CSR using Chinese A-share listed firms from 2009 to 2018. Moreover, this impact is stronger in firms with political connections with the central government and in regions with good market development. Furthermore, the mechanism analysis shows that returnee executives drive firms' CSR by promoting corporate donations and green innovation. This paper offers clear policy implications by suggesting that hiring returnees with a broad geographic scope of foreign experience as corporate executives is an efficient way to enhance firms' CSR.

Surveillance for Emerging and Reemerging Pathogens Using Pathogen Agnostic Metagenomic Sequencing in the United States: A Critical Role for Federal Government Agencies.

The surveillance and identification of emerging, reemerging, and unknown infectious disease pathogens is essential to national public health preparedness and relies on fluidity, coordination, and interconnectivity between public and private pathogen surveillance systems and networks. Developing a national sentinel surveillance network with existing resources and infrastructure could increase efficiency, accelerate the identification of emerging public health threats, and support coordinated intervention strategies that reduce morbidity and mortality. However, implementing and sustaining programs to detect emerging and reemerging pathogens in humans using advanced molecular methods, such as metagenomic sequencing, requires making large investments in testing equipment and developing networks of clinicians, laboratory scientists, and bioinformaticians. In this study, we sought to gain an understanding of how federal government agencies currently support such pathogen agnostic testing of human specimens in the United States. We conducted a landscape analysis of federal agency websites for publicly accessible information on the availability and type of pathogen agnostic testing and details on flow of clinical specimens and data. The website analysis was supplemented by an expert review of results with representatives from the federal agencies. Operating divisions within the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Veterans Affairs have developed and sustained extensive clinical and research networks to obtain patient specimens and perform metagenomic sequencing. Metagenomic facilities supported by US agencies were not equally geographically distributed across the United States. Although many entities have work dedicated to metagenomics and/or support emerging infectious disease surveillance specimen collection, there was minimal formal collaboration across agencies.

Protecting Privacy of Pregnant and LGBTQ+ Research Participants.

This Viewpoint summarizes existing federal regulations aimed at protecting research data, describes the challenges of enforcing these regulations, and discusses how evolving privacy technologies could be used to reduce health disparities and advance health equity among pregnant and LGBTQ+ research participants.

How much is invested in obesity prevention in Australia? An analysis of major research and Federal Government funding, 2013-2022.

Objective and importance of study: Overweight and obesity are the second leading risk factors for death and non-communicable disease in Australia. This study aimed to examine the Australian Federal Government funding landscape for population-level obesity prevention from 2013 to 2022. STUDY TYPE: A retrospective analysis and narrative synthesis of publicly available data on obesity prevention funding from the Federal Government and major federally funded Australian research organisations. METHODS: Searches were conducted of Australian Federal Government Budget documents and funding announcements from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Research Council (ARC) and Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). Funding allocations targeting obesity prevention, or the prevention of risk factors associated with obesity, were included. These were determined by the presence of keywords related to obesity, unhealthy diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Data were extracted verbatim, coded and narratively synthesised by funding source. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2022, 186 funding allocations for obesity prevention in Australia were identified, totalling approximately A$778 million. The proportion of funding allocated to obesity prevention compared to the total annual budget of each funding source was relatively low: NHMRC = 1.1%; ARC = 0.2%; MRFF = 0.8%; Federal Government = 0.1% (of health budget). Funding for obesity prevention initiatives fluctuated over time. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore the need for strategic and ongoing funding allocation to support obesity prevention research, implementation and sustainment of evidence-based obesity prevention initiatives in Australia.

How Should Resources From National Stockpiles Be Managed?

The Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) is a national system maintained by the US federal government to deliver medical supplies during emergencies. In the past, the SNS has been used to mitigate public health consequences of tragedies, such as Hurricane Katrina and Ebola outbreaks. However, challenges in maintaining and utilizing the SNS for patient safety are prevalent. This article canvasses ways in which the SNS is accessed and suggests needed changes in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mapping Ethical Artificial Intelligence Policy Landscape: A Mixed Method Analysis.

As more national governments adopt policies addressing the ethical implications of artificial intelligence, a comparative analysis of policy documents on these topics can provide valuable insights into emerging concerns and areas of shared importance. This study critically examines 57 policy documents pertaining to ethical AI originating from 24 distinct countries, employing a combination of computational text mining methods and qualitative content analysis. The primary objective is to methodically identify common themes throughout these policy documents and perform a comparative analysis of the ways in which various governments give priority to crucial matters. A total of nineteen topics were initially retrieved. Through an iterative coding process, six overarching themes were identified: principles, the protection of personal data, governmental roles and responsibilities, procedural guidelines, governance and monitoring mechanisms, and epistemological considerations. Furthermore, the research revealed 31 ethical dilemmas pertaining to AI that had been overlooked previously but are now emerging. These dilemmas have been referred to in different extents throughout the policy documents. This research makes a scholarly contribution to the expanding field of technology policy formulations at the national level by analyzing similarities and differences among countries. Furthermore, this analysis has practical ramifications for policymakers who are attempting to comprehend prevailing trends and potentially neglected domains that demand focus in the ever-evolving field of artificial intelligence.

Democratizing social scientists' impact on federal policy: Using the evidence act to help government and ourselves.

It is common for social scientists to discuss the implications of our research for policy. However, what actions can we take to inform policy in more immediate and impactful ways, regardless of our existing institutional affiliations or personal connections? Focusing on federal policy, I suggest that the answer requires understanding a basic coordination problem. On the government side, the Foundations of Evidence-based Policymaking Act (2018) requires that large federal agencies pose, communicate, and answer research questions related to their effects on people and communities. This advancement has opened the black box of federal agency policy priorities, but it has not addressed capacity challenges: These agencies often do not have the financial resources or staff to answer the research questions they pose. On the higher education side, we have more than 150,000 academic social scientists who are knowledge producers and educators by training and vocation. However, especially among those in disciplinary departments, or those without existing institutional or personal connections to federal agencies, we often feel locked out of federal policymaking processes. In this article, I define the coordination problem and offer concrete actions that the academic and federal government communities can take to address it. I also offer leading examples of how academics and universities are making public policy impact possible in multiple governmental spheres. I conclude by arguing that both higher education institutions and all levels of government can do more to help academic social scientists put our knowledge to work in service of the public good.