Search

Background During health emergencies, effective infodemic management has become a paramount challenge. A new era marked by a rapidly changing information ecosystem, combined with the widespread dissemination of misinformation and disinformation, has magnified the complexity of the issue. For infodemic management measures to be effective, acceptable, and trustworthy, a robust framework of ethical considerations is needed. Objective This systematic scoping review aims to identify and analyze ethical considerations and procedural principles relevant to infodemic management, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of these practices and increasing trust in stakeholders performing infodemic management practices with the goal of safeguarding public health. Methods The review involved a comprehensive examination of the literature related to ethical considerations in infodemic management from 2002 to 2022, drawing from publications in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Policy documents and relevant material were included in the search strategy. Papers were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and core thematic areas were systematically identified and categorized following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We analyzed the literature to identify substantive ethical principles that were crucial for guiding actions in the realms of infodemic management and social listening, as well as related procedural ethical principles. In this review, we consider ethical principles that are extensively deliberated upon in the literature, such as equity, justice, or respect for autonomy. However, we acknowledge the existence and relevance of procedural practices, which we also consider as ethical principles or practices that, when implemented, enhance the efficacy of infodemic management while ensuring the respect of substantive ethical principles. Results Drawing from 103 publications, the review yielded several key finding

AI holds the potential to transform healthcare, promising improvements in patient care. Yet, realizing this potential is hampered by over-reliance on limited datasets and a lack of transparency in validation processes. To overcome these obstacles, we advocate the creation of a detailed registry for AI algorithms. This registry would document the development, training, and validation of AI models, ensuring scientific integrity and transparency. Additionally, it would serve as a platform for peer review and ethical oversight. By bridging the gap between scientific validation and regulatory approval, such as by the FDA, we aim to enhance the integrity and trustworthiness of AI applications in healthcare.

Contributed to this WHO guidance as member of the "WHO Expert Group on Ethics and Governance of AI for Health". WHO is issuing this guidance to assist Member States in mapping the benefits and challenges associated with use of LMMs for health and in developing policies and practices for appropriate development, provision and use. The guidance includes recommendations for governance, within companies, by governments and through international collaboration, aligned with the guiding principles. The principles and recommendations, which account for the unique ways in which humans can use generative AI for health, are the basis of this guidance.

The Covid-19 pandemic, and the associated mobility restrictions, contact bans, cell phone monitoring apps and other strategies to contain chains of infection, has led to a clear increase in the use of digital applications in public and private healthcare in the past year. The possibility of avoiding contact through remote monitoring of patients in hospitals and in the home care sector also contributed to this trend. Improved data analyzes in the research, development and testing of new therapies, as well as the growing potential of artificial intelligence for diagnostic methods and vaccine candidates developed in an urgent manner, also resulted in an increased demand and use of digital tools among doctors, patients, hospitals and researchers and companies. Although many of these new digital possibilities received great approval and support from the population, it soon became apparent that not all applications were technically fully developed and that new answers to a wide range of risks and security deficiencies had to be found (Lizzie O'Shea, 2020 ). The use of these technical innovations was therefore not only accompanied by socio-economic and political discussions, but also by ethical and legal debates. Issues such as data protection, cybersecurity, consent, transparency, discrimination, property and fair distribution and access to digital opportunities play an important role here. In addition, the pandemic not only had a direct impact on various urgent laws and the ethical debates on hazard prevention and the organization of the health system. In Germany in particular, the interaction of the COVID-19 crisis with a number of groundbreaking laws in the field of digital medicine that had been planned for a long time was also recently revealed. The only examples here are the recently passed Digital Supply Act (Digital Supply Act - DVG, 2019), including the Hospital Future Act ((Hospital Future Act - KHZG, 2020). It quickly became clear that the COVID-19 pan

See: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200: The WHO guidance on Ethics & Governance of Artificial Intelligence for Health is the product of eighteen months of deliberation amongst leading experts in ethics, digital technology, law, human rights, as well as experts from Ministries of Health. While new technologies that use artificial intelligence hold great promise to improve diagnosis, treatment, health research and drug development and to support governments carrying out public health functions, including surveillance and outbreak response, such technologies, according to the report, must put ethics and human rights at the heart of its design, deployment, and use.The report identifies the ethical challenges and risks with the use of artificial intelligence of health, six consensus principles to ensure AI works to the public benefit of all countries. It also contains a set of recommendations that can ensure the governance of artificial intelligence for health maximizes the promise of the technology and holds all stakeholders – in the public and private sector – accountable and responsive to the healthcare workers who will rely on these technologies and the communities and individuals whose health will be affected by its use.

Die Covid-19-Pandemie und die damit einhergehenden Mobilitäts-Begrenzungen, Kontaktverbote, Handy Überwachungs- Apps sowie weitere Strategien zur Eindämmung von Infektionsketten hat im letzten Jahr zu einem eindeutigen Anstieg der Nutzung digitaler Anwendungen im öffentlichen und privaten Gesundheitswesen geführt. Verbesserte Daten-Analysen in der Forschung, Entwicklung und Prüfung von neuen Therapien, sowie das wachsende Potential der Künstlichen Intelligenz für im Eilverfahren entwickelte diagnostische Methoden und Impfstoffkandidaten, resultierte ebenfalls in einer gestiegenen Nachfrage und Anwendung von digitalen Hilfsmitteln unter Ärzten, Patienten, Krankenhäusern, Forschern und Unternehmen. Der Einsatz dieser technischen Innovationen wurde jedoch sowohl von sozioökonomischen und politischen Diskussionen also auch von regen ethischen und rechtlichen Debatten begleitet. Themen wie Datenschutz, Cybersicherheit, Einwilligung, Transparenz, Diskriminierung, Eigentum und eine gerechte Verteilung und Zugang zu den digitalen Möglichkeiten spielen hierbei eine wichtige Rolle. Dieses Kapitel erörtert zentrale ethische und rechtliche Fragestellungen anhand von konkreten Fallbeispielen und liefert eine eingehende Diskussion von ausgewählten Fragestellungen, die nicht nur ethische und rechtliche Problembereiche und Risiken verdeutlicht, sondern auch Lösungsoptionen aufzeigt., Cite as: Minssen T., Gerke S. (2021) Ethische und rechtliche Herausforderungen digitaler Medizin in Pandemien. In: Reis A., Schmidhuber M., Frewer A. (eds) Pandemien und Ethik. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-63530-8_12 Abstract: Die Covid-19-Pandemie, und die damit einhergehenden Mobilitäts-Begrenzungen, Kontaktverbote, Handy Überwachungs-Apps, sowie weitere Strategien zur Eindämmung von Infektionsketten, hat im letzten Jahr zu einem eindeutigen Anstieg der Nutzung digitaler Anwendungen im öffentlichen und privaten Gesundheitswesen geführt. Auch die Möglichkeiten der Kontaktvermeidung durch die Fernüberwachung von Patienten in Krankenhäusern und im Heimpflege-Bereich steuerte zu diesem Trend bei. Verbesserte Daten-Analysen in der Forschung, Entwicklung und Prüfung von neuen Therapien, sowie das wachsende Potential der Künstlichen Intelligenz für im Eilverfahren entwickelte diagnostische Methoden und Impfstoffkandidaten, resultierte ebenfalls in einer gestiegenen Nachfrage und Anwendung von digitalen Hilfsmitteln unter Ärzten, Patienten, Krankenhäuser, Forschern und Unternehmen. Obwohl viele dieser neuen digitalen Möglichkeit regen Zuspruch und Unterstützung in der Bevölkerung erhalten, zeigte sich jedoch auch bald dass nicht alle Anwendungen technisch voll ausgreift waren und dass neue Antworten auf ein breites Spektrum von Risiken und Sicherheitsmängeln gefunden werden müssen (Lizzie O'Shea, 2020). Der Einsatz dieser technischen Innovationen wurde daher nicht nur von sozioökonomischen und politischen Diskussionen begleitet, sondern auch von ethischen und rechtlichen Debatten. Themen wie Datenschutz, Cybersicherheit, Einwilligung, Transparenz, Diskriminierung, Eigentum und eine gerechte Verteilung und Zugang zu den digitalen Möglichkeiten spielen hierbei eine wichtige Rolle. Zudem hatte die Pandemie nicht nur einen unmittelbaren Einfluss auf verschiedene Eilgesetze und die ethischen Debatten zur Gefahrenabwehr und