Dataset Information

Vector control in Zika-affected communities: Local views on community engagement and public health ethics during outbreaks.

ABSTRACT: Aerial spraying of products to kill larvae or adult mosquitoes is a public health measure used to control vector-borne diseases. In some outbreaks, the intervention has evoked controversy and community resistance. This study evaluated how local opinion leaders in US localities affected by Zika think about community engagement in public health policies for outbreak response. In December 2017 through March 2018, 4 focus groups were convened in Houston, TX, New Orleans, LA, Miami, FL, and Brooklyn, NY. They discussed a hypothetical scenario that featured vector control by aerial spraying. Participants (N = 20) more readily accepted this vector control method under 4 conditions: They were informed of alternatives, benefits, and risks for human health and the environment. Public health claims were backed by objective evidence and an authority figure genuinely working in the community's interests. They received timely notice about how to mitigate toxin exposure. And, aerial spraying helped to protect vulnerable individuals. The community engagement requirements of the local opinion leaders resonate with core principles of recent public health ethics frameworks: namely, personal autonomy, transparency, reasonableness, and solidarity. Participants foresaw problems with community consent in an era of growing social media use and mistrust in governmental and scientific authority. They also debated whether health authorities should use moral-based arguments, in addition to science-based ones, to communicate aerial spraying's risks and benefits.

SUBMITTER: Schoch-Spana M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7052511 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Vector control in Zika-affected communities: Local views on community engagement and public health ethics during outbreaks.

Schoch-Spana Monica M Watson Crystal C Ravi Sanjana S Meyer Diane D Pechta Laura E LE Rose Dale A DA Lubell Keri M KM Podgornik Michelle N MN Sell Tara Kirk TK

Preventive medicine reports 20200125

Aerial spraying of products to kill larvae or adult mosquitoes is a public health measure used to control vector-borne diseases. In some outbreaks, the intervention has evoked controversy and community resistance. This study evaluated how local opinion leaders in US localities affected by Zika think about community engagement in public health policies for outbreak response. In December 2017 through March 2018, 4 focus groups were convened in Houston, TX, New Orleans, LA, Miami, FL, and Brooklyn, ...[more]

PMID: 32154093

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, tensions between IRBs and principal investigators (PIs) have risen, posing the needs to understand these conflicts, their underlying causes, and possible solutions. Researchers frequently complain about IRBs, but how IRBs perceive and respond to these criticisms is unclear.MethodsI conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of two hours each with 46 chairs, administrators, and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs around the country (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding) and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%).ResultsInterviewees suggest that IRBs and PIs may view the nature and causes of these conflicts very differently and misunderstand each other, exacerbating tensions. Interviewees often recognized that they were seen by PIs as having power, but many IRBs saw themselves as not having it (e.g., because they are "merely following the regulations," and their process is "open," impersonal and unbiased, and they are themselves subject to higher administrative agencies), or as having it, but feeling it is small, and/or justified (e.g., because it is based on overriding goals and "the community values," and IRBs are trying to help PIs). Questions emerge as to whether IRBs do or should have power, and if so, what kind, how much, and when. Several factors may affect these tensions.ConclusionsThis study, the first to explore how IRBs perceive and understand conflicts and power relationships with PIs, suggests how IRBs and PIs may differ in viewing their respective roles and relationships, exacerbating tensions. These issues have critical implications for IRBs and PIs--to enhance their awareness and understanding of these conflicts (e.g., that IRBs may have discretionary power) and the underlying causes involved, and for increasing attention to research, practice, and policy concerning these areas of IRB functioning and interactions with PIs.

Project description:BackgroundUNderstanding Factors that explain Avoidable hospital admission Inequalities-Research study (UNFAIR) addresses how to reduce health inequalities, particularly for avoidable hospital admissions. Our Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) members broached that health inequalities are complex, challenging to understand and communicate. They identified a need to explore diverse views, including people who have a higher risk of health inequalities. With limited public-facing resources relating to the public's understanding or emotions around health inequalities, this project aimed to fill this gap using co-leadership and co-production.MethodsMembers of the public worked with researchers to co-produce and run PPIE workshops. This project was co-led by a member of the public and a researcher. One online workshop open to anyone in England accompanied by three face-to-face workshops were held. Public contributors, including people living in diverse communities, were invited. Inclusive involvement opportunities were offered including flexible ways of involvement and remuneration. To strengthen the key messages' rigour, transcriptions of the audio-recordings from each workshop, with facilitator notes, were analysed using thematic analysis. From the key messages, an animation was co-produced with public contributors with the public's voice being integral throughout.Key messagesA total of 58 people took part capturing intersecting and multiple dimensions of marginalisation including people with a range of ages, genders, ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and members of communities who face exclusion (including people with learning difficulties and experiencing ill-health). The animation highlighted powerful lived experience, for example, some people are dying earlier than expected. Health inequalities conjured up powerful emotions, such as anger and hopelessness. Public views of how to address health inequalities included respecting, accepting and valuing everyone, regardless of, for example, where people live. The animation is publicly available for use by anyone, including decision makers across the health and care system.ConclusionsThrough co-leadership and co-production, this project is an example of inclusive PPIE. This project provided a way for the public's voice to influence policy and practice to inform understanding and action to address health inequalities. The animation provides powerful insights into what health inequalities mean to people with examples of lived experience and corroborates the moral argument for action by decision makers.Patient and public contributionMembers of the public, including people who were affected or at higher risk of health inequalities, co-led this project and were involved as co-creators and developers from the inception of the project to completion. Their involvement was integral and documented in full throughout the project.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Screening for Down's syndrome forms part of routine obstetric practice. Ethical considerations relating to genetic screening form a major part of the workload of research ethics committees. This study investigated the attitudes of research ethics committee members to several conditions varying in clinical severity and prognosis, including Down's syndrome. METHODS:The members of 40 randomly chosen research ethics committees were surveyed. A simple questionnaire comprising 19 clinical scenarios based around four "clinical" conditions was designed to review conditions that were potentially embarrassing, affecting life span but not mental ability, premature death, and intellectual impairment with a risk of neonatal cardiac defects (Down's syndrome). Screening tests with different degrees of effectiveness were described and the diagnostic test descriptions ranged from having no risk to an unaffected fetus to causing spontaneous abortion of two normal fetuses for each affected fetus identified. Replies were graded on a scale of 1 to 5. RESULTS:Seventy seven replies were received from 28 different research ethics committees. Screening was supported for treatment of a life threatening condition (95% in favour) but screening for conditions of a slight increase in premature death (14% in favour) or cosmetic features (10% in favour) were considered unethical. Views were ambiguous (49% in favour) about conditions involving significant shortening of lifespan. Down's syndrome screening was considered more ethical when described as a serious condition (56% in favour) than when the clinical features were described (44% in favour). Once increased rates of spontaneous abortion on confirmatory testing were added, 79% (21% in favour) and 86% (14% in favour) stated that screening was unethical (for "serious" and "clinical features" descriptions, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Down's syndrome screening raises ethical concerns about genetic testing in general that need to be dealt with before the introduction of any prenatal screening test.

Dataset Information

Vector control in Zika-affected communities: Local views on community engagement and public health ethics during outbreaks.

Publications

Vector control in Zika-affected communities: Local views on community engagement and public health ethics during outbreaks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets