Search

Introduction: Public health ethics addresses moral dilemmas arising from balancing individual healthcare needs with societal interests. Ethical considerations in public health during pandemics and disasters aim to reduce mortality rates and minimize social injustice through fair principles. Objective: This paper analyzes public health ethics and ethical values in allocating resources during mass casualty incidents. The intersection of public health ethics, applied bioethics, and ethics of social consequences (through non-utilitarian consequentialism) guides addressing serious public health challenges in catastrophic scenarios. The application of the given interaction is significant for professional medical ethics. Methodology: The paper employs inductive, deductive, and normative methods of bioethics and the methodology of ethics of social consequences. Conclusion: The paradigmatic disparity between the bioethics of pandemics and disaster bioethics lies in the fluid application of bioethical principles and the accentuation of utilitarian demands depending on the severity and scale of mass casualty incidents. Applied bioethics in crisis situations respects the approaches of public health ethics and attempts to increase positive social outcomes. The application of (scarce) resource allocation criteria and triage of patients is derived from ethical decisions beneficial to public health and lege artis approaches of medical bioethics. The paper presents professional and ethical criteria for medically inappropriate treatment within the framework of patient triage; we approach crisis ethics from the perspective of maximization of benefit. Age is not an exclusion criterion of acute healthcare provision in crisis situations. Ethics of social consequences as a form of non-utilitarian consequentialism allowing for social consequences bridges public health ethics and applied bioethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care nurses were often redeployed to areas outside of primary care to mitigate staffing shortages. Despite this, there is a scarcity of literature describing their perceptions of and experiences with redeployment during the pandemic. Objectives: This paper aims to: 1) describe the perspectives of primary care nurses with respect to redeployment, 2) discuss the opportunities/challenges associated with redeployment of primary care nurses, and 3) examine the nature (e.g., settings, activities) of redeployment by primary care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary care nurses (i.e., Nurse Practitioners, Registered Nurses, and Licensed/Registered Practical Nurses), from four regions in Canada. These include the Interior, Island, and Vancouver Coastal Health regions in British Columbia; Ontario Health West region in Ontario; the province of Nova Scotia; and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Data related to redeployment were analyzed thematically. Results: Three overarching themes related to redeployment during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified: (1) Call to redeployment, (2) Redeployment as an opportunity/challenge, and (3) Scope of practice during redeployment. Primary care nurses across all regulatory designations reported variation in the process of redeployment within their jurisdiction (e.g., communication, policies/legislation), different opportunities and challenges that resulted from redeployment (e.g., scheduling flexibility, workload implications), and scope of practice implications (e.g., perceived threat to nursing license). The majority of nurses discussed experiences with redeployment being voluntary in nature, rather than mandated. Conclusions: Redeployment is a useful workforce strategy during public health emergencies; however, it requires a structured process and a decision-making approach that explicitly involves healthcare providers affected by redeployment. Primary care nurses ought only to be redeployed after other options are considered and arrangements made for the care of patients in their original practice area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted global daily life, including the world of elite athletes. This paper examines the multifaceted impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on elite swimmers and water polo athletes, specifically their mental health, their concerns over the virus, their intentions of getting vaccinated, and sleep disturbances that they may have faced. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study on elite swimmers and water polo players, using an anonymous questionnaire. Results: A total of 200 elite athletes participated. The majority of the participants reported a negative impact on their mental health, screened positive for insomnia (n = 107 (53.5%), with females (n = 101; 57.7%), swimmers (n = 100, 66.7%), and university students (n = 71, 71.7%) being more vulnerable (p < 0.001). Concerns about contracting the disease especially during important training or tournament periods and potential career disruption also affected their psychological well-being. While the majority (75%) had the intention of getting vaccinated, an alarming percentage was yet uncertain over its decision. Conclusions: This study highlights the significant psychological distress faced by elite aquatic athletes during the pandemic. It emphasizes the difficulties faced by elite swimmers and water polo athletes and determines not only the importance of addressing the vaccination intentions of athletes, but also how critical it is to confront the challenges they face both for their personal health and for the restoration of world sports to their pre-pandemic state. More large-scale studies are required to inform policies targeted at minimizing disruption to the athletes' career, provision of information on preventive measures and vaccination, and improvement in psychological well-being in case of similar major public health issues in the future. Additionally, this study calls for further research to explore the unique challenges faced by aquatic athletes, such as those related to their training environments and fear of contagion, to better support them in future public health crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic halted progress in global vaccine coverage and disrupted routine childhood vaccination practices worldwide. While there is ample evidence of the vaccination decline experienced during the pandemic, it is less clear how low-income countries were affected. We executed a systematic review to synthesize the current literature on the impacts of routine childhood vaccinations in low-income countries from 1 January 2020 to 8 February 2023. We collected data using an extraction form on Covidence and assessed the quality of studies included in the review using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Effect estimates for changes in vaccination during the pandemic were reported and summarized. Factors that influenced changes were grouped into descriptive themes. Thirteen studies, encompassing 18 low-income countries and evaluating 15 vaccines at varying doses, were included in the final review. We found that routine childhood vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic varied considerably by vaccine type, location, and phase of the pandemic. Nine different themes were identified as factors that influenced changes in vaccination. Documenting past experiences and lessons learned is crucial for informing preparedness efforts in anticipation of future public health emergencies. Failure to effectively address these things in the next public health emergency could result in a recurrence of declining routine childhood vaccinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cannabis use before the COVID-19 pandemic for many involved sharing prepared cannabis for inhalation, practices that were less prevalent during the pandemic. State-level COVID-19 containment policies may have influenced this decrease. This study examined the extent to which the intensity of state-level COVID-19 policies were associated with individual-level cannabis sharing. Findings have the potential to guide harm reduction policies for future respiratory pandemics and seasonal respiratory virus waves. Methods: This study used cross-sectional individual-level data from the COVID-19 Cannabis Study, an anonymous U.S.-based web survey on cannabis use disseminated during the early phase of the pandemic (Full sample N = 1,883). We combined individual-level data with state-level policy data from Kaiser Family Foundation's State COVID-19 Data and Policy Actions for three time-points from June to August 2020 that overlapped with the survey period. Cannabis sharing was dichotomized as any versus no sharing. We adapted a previously published coding framework to score the intensity of COVID-19 policies implemented in each U.S. state and averaged the policy score across the time period. We then used Poisson regression models to quantify the associations of the average state-level COVID-19 policy score with cannabis sharing during the pandemic. Results: Participants (n = 925) reporting using inhalation as a mode for cannabis use were included in this analysis. Most respondents were male (64.1%), non-Hispanic White (54.3%), with a mean age of 33.7 years (SD 8.8). A large proportion (74.9%) reported sharing cannabis during the pandemic. Those who shared cannabis more commonly lived in states with a lower average policy score (16.7, IQR 12.3–21.5) compared to those who did not share (18.6, IQR 15.3–25.3). In adjusted models, the prevalence ratio of any cannabis sharing per every 5-unit increase in the average COVID-19 policy score was 0.97 (95% CI 0.93, 1.01). Conclusions: Fewer individuals shared cannabis in states with more intense COVID-19 containment policies compared to those in states with less intense policies. Individuals who use cannabis may be willing to make changes to their behavior and may further benefit from specific and directed public health messaging to avoid sharing during respiratory infection outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although immunization is one of the most successful and cost-effective interventions that prevents millions of infant and child deaths yearly, it has failed to achieve its intended goals in some low-income countries. Yemen is currently experiencing the most extreme humanitarian crisis globally, which has affected health and worsened its economy and political governance instability. There are few reports on Yemeni vaccination statuses. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of the public health emergency crises on childhood immunization in Yemen. A retrospective descriptive study was conducted in the Coastal Hadhramaut Governorate, Yemen. Secondary data from governorate annual reports for 2013–2020 were extracted. The assessment of the annual immunization coverage rate according to each vaccine was tabulated. The analysis revealed that the 2013–2019 vaccination coverage in Coastal Hadhramaut demonstrated an increasing trend. However, vaccination coverage decreased for all vaccines in 2015–2016 and 2020. Although all three doses of the pentavalent vaccine demonstrated >85% coverage in all years, the coverage of the first and second doses decreased in 2016, and the coverage of all doses decreased in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health emergencies negatively affected routine immunization coverage in Yemen. The trend correlated with the humanitarian crisis and other research findings in Yemen. The national response to public health threats during emergency crises must involve strengthening the program for monitoring and evaluating vaccine-preventable diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Annali di Igiene, Medicina Preventiva e di Comunità is the property of Societa Editrice Universo s.r.l. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale is a 7-item psychometric scale developed by Freeman and colleagues a year after detecting the first case of the disease in 2019. The scale assesses people's thoughts, feelings, and behavior toward COVID-19 vaccines. A comprehensive search of major electronic databases, including Scopus, Clarivate Analytics, and PubMed, was conducted to extract eligible articles for inclusion in this meta-analysis. This paper reports information on data collected for a reliability generalization meta-analysis of the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale. The dataset incorporates information on the average reliability of the scale as measured with Cronbach's alpha in 20 studies included in the meta-analysis. Several benefits can be derived from the dataset. In particular, the research community would find this dataset beneficial as it can enhance their understanding of the health challenges of COVID-19, helping them come up with better solutions to eradicate the disease.