Perspectives of Australian policy-makers on the potential benefits and risks of technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance - a modified Delphi survey.
Administrative Personnel
Attitude
Australia
Communicable Diseases
/ epidemiology
Data Mining
/ ethics
Disease Outbreaks
Epidemiologic Research Design
Ethics, Research
Health Policy
Humans
Informed Consent
Population Surveillance
/ methods
Public Health
Risk Assessment
Social Control, Formal
Social Media
Surveys and Questionnaires
Technology
/ ethics
Trust
Whole Genome Sequencing
Australia
expert consultation
infectious disease research
policy implementation
public health surveillance
technological innovation
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Apr 2019
04 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
07
05
2018
accepted:
14
03
2019
entrez:
6
4
2019
pubmed:
6
4
2019
medline:
14
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Event-based social media monitoring and pathogen whole genome sequencing (WGS) will enhance communicable disease surveillance research and systems. If linked electronically and scanned systematically, the information provided by these technologies could be mined to uncover new epidemiological patterns and associations much faster than traditional public health approaches. The benefits of earlier outbreak detection are significant, but implementation could be opposed in the absence of a social licence or if ethical and legal concerns are not addressed. A three-phase mixed-method Delphi survey with Australian policy-makers, health practitioners and lawyers (n = 44) was conducted to explore areas of consensus and disagreement over (1) key policy and practical issues raised by the introduction of novel communicable disease surveillance programmes; and (2) the most significant and likely risks from using social media content and WGS technologies in epidemiological research and outbreak investigations. Panellists agreed that the integration of social media monitoring and WGS technologies into communicable disease surveillance systems raised significant issues, including impacts on personal privacy, medicolegal risks and the potential for unintended consequences. Notably, their concerns focused on how these technologies should be used, rather than how the data was collected. Panellists held that social media users should expect their posts to be monitored in the interests of public health, but using those platforms to contact identified individuals was controversial. The conditions of appropriate use of pathogen WGS in epidemiological research and investigations was also contentious. Key differences amongst participants included the necessity for consent before testing and data-linkage, thresholds for action, and the legal and ethical importance of harms to individuals and commercial entities. The erosion of public trust was seen as the most significant risk from the systematic use of these technologies. Enhancing communicable disease surveillance with social-media monitoring and pathogen WGS may cause controversy. The challenge is to determine and then codify how these technologies should be used such that the balance between individual risk and community benefit is widely accepted. Participants agreed that clear guidelines for appropriate use that address legal and ethical concerns need to be developed in consultation with relevant experts and the broader Australian public.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Event-based social media monitoring and pathogen whole genome sequencing (WGS) will enhance communicable disease surveillance research and systems. If linked electronically and scanned systematically, the information provided by these technologies could be mined to uncover new epidemiological patterns and associations much faster than traditional public health approaches. The benefits of earlier outbreak detection are significant, but implementation could be opposed in the absence of a social licence or if ethical and legal concerns are not addressed.
METHODS
METHODS
A three-phase mixed-method Delphi survey with Australian policy-makers, health practitioners and lawyers (n = 44) was conducted to explore areas of consensus and disagreement over (1) key policy and practical issues raised by the introduction of novel communicable disease surveillance programmes; and (2) the most significant and likely risks from using social media content and WGS technologies in epidemiological research and outbreak investigations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Panellists agreed that the integration of social media monitoring and WGS technologies into communicable disease surveillance systems raised significant issues, including impacts on personal privacy, medicolegal risks and the potential for unintended consequences. Notably, their concerns focused on how these technologies should be used, rather than how the data was collected. Panellists held that social media users should expect their posts to be monitored in the interests of public health, but using those platforms to contact identified individuals was controversial. The conditions of appropriate use of pathogen WGS in epidemiological research and investigations was also contentious. Key differences amongst participants included the necessity for consent before testing and data-linkage, thresholds for action, and the legal and ethical importance of harms to individuals and commercial entities. The erosion of public trust was seen as the most significant risk from the systematic use of these technologies.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Enhancing communicable disease surveillance with social-media monitoring and pathogen WGS may cause controversy. The challenge is to determine and then codify how these technologies should be used such that the balance between individual risk and community benefit is widely accepted. Participants agreed that clear guidelines for appropriate use that address legal and ethical concerns need to be developed in consultation with relevant experts and the broader Australian public.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30947721
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0440-3
pii: 10.1186/s12961-019-0440-3
pmc: PMC6449976
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
35Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council (AU)
ID : 1083079
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council (AU)
ID : 1102962
Références
Int J Nurs Stud. 2001 Apr;38(2):195-200
pubmed: 11223060
Nature. 2009 Feb 19;457(7232):1012-4
pubmed: 19020500
Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Mar-Apr;28(2):454-66
pubmed: 19276005
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009 Jun;3(2 Suppl):S29-36
pubmed: 19491585
Br J Sociol. 2010 Jan;61 Suppl 1:271-303
pubmed: 20092498
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 25;365(8):685-7
pubmed: 21864165
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(7):e1002616
pubmed: 22844241
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
J Law Med. 2013 Dec;21(2):473-85
pubmed: 24597394
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;109:1-9
pubmed: 24657639
Public Underst Sci. 2014 Aug;23(6):688-702
pubmed: 25414928
BMJ. 2015 May 11;350:h1314
pubmed: 25964672
J Law Med. 2015 Jun;22(4):864-70
pubmed: 26349383
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 05;10(10):e0139701
pubmed: 26437454
BMC Public Health. 2015 Dec 29;15:1307
pubmed: 26715066
Am J Infect Control. 2016 Dec 1;44(12):1660-1671
pubmed: 27425009
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jan;97:43-51
pubmed: 27919394
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018 Jan/Feb;24(1):9-17
pubmed: 28141670
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Apr;179:166-171
pubmed: 28285232
Euro Surveill. 2017 Jun 8;22(23):
pubmed: 28661389
J Infect Dis. 2016 Dec 1;214(suppl_4):S386-S392
pubmed: 28830105
J Infect Dis. 2016 Dec 1;214(suppl_4):S421-S426
pubmed: 28830110
J Infect Dis. 2016 Dec 1;214(suppl_4):S375-S379
pubmed: 28830113
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2017 Oct;30(4):1015-1063
pubmed: 28855266
Lancet Public Health. 2017 Aug;2(8):e348-e349
pubmed: 29253471
Am J Infect Control. 2018 Sep;46(9):962-972
pubmed: 29628293
BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80
pubmed: 7640549