46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      On the imperative of thinking through the ethical, health equity, and social justice possibilities and limits of digital technologies in public health

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated both the positive and negative use, usefulness, and impact of digital technologies in public health. Digitalization can help advance and sustain the core functions of public health, including health promotion and prevention, epidemiological surveillance, and response to emergent health issues. Digital technologies are thus—in some areas of public discourse—presented as being both necessary and inevitable requirements to address routine and emergency public health issues. However, the circumstances, ways, and extent to which they apply remain a subject of critical reflection and empirical investigation. In this commentary, we argue that we must think through the use of digital technologies in public health and that their usefulness must be assessed in relation to their short- and long-term ethical, health equity, and social justice implications. Neither a sense of digital technological optimism and determinism nor the demands of addressing pressing public health issues should override critical assessment before development and implementation. The urgency of addressing public health emergencies such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic requires prompt and effective action, including action facilitated by digital technologies. Nevertheless, a sense of urgency cannot be an excuse or a substitute for a critical assessment of the tools employed.

          Résumé

          La pandémie de COVID-19 a montré les aspects positifs et négatifs de l’utilisation, de l’utilité et de l’impact des technologies numériques en santé publique. La numérisation peut contribuer à promouvoir et à soutenir les fonctions de base de la santé publique, dont la promotion de la santé, la prévention, la surveillance épidémiologique et la riposte aux nouvelles crises sanitaires. Les technologies numériques sont donc—dans certaines parties du discours public—présentées comme étant à la fois nécessaires et inévitables pour résoudre les problèmes de santé publique ordinaires ou urgents. Par contre, les circonstances, les moyens et la mesure dans laquelle elles s’appliquent font encore l’objet d’une réflexion critique et d’une investigation empirique. Dans ce commentaire, nous faisons valoir qu’il faut bien réfléchir à l’utilisation des technologies numériques en santé publique, et que leur utilité doit être analysée par rapport à leurs conséquences à court et à long terme sur l’éthique, l’équité en santé et la justice sociale. Ni les sentiments d’optimisme et de déterminisme à l’égard des technologies numériques, ni la nécessité de résoudre les problèmes de santé publique pressants ne devraient prendre le dessus sur l’analyse critique avant leur développement et leur mise en œuvre. L’urgence de résoudre des crises sanitaires comme la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 nécessite une action rapide et efficace, et cette action peut être facilitée par les technologies numériques. Néanmoins, le sentiment d’urgence ne doit pas être une excuse et ne peut pas remplacer une analyse critique des outils employés.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Health equity and COVID-19: global perspectives

          The COVID-19 is disproportionally affecting the poor, minorities and a broad range of vulnerable populations, due to its inequitable spread in areas of dense population and limited mitigation capacity due to high prevalence of chronic conditions or poor access to high quality public health and medical care. Moreover, the collateral effects of the pandemic due to the global economic downturn, and social isolation and movement restriction measures, are unequally affecting those in the lowest power strata of societies. To address the challenges to health equity and describe some of the approaches taken by governments and local organizations, we have compiled 13 country case studies from various regions around the world: China, Brazil, Thailand, Sub Saharan Africa, Nicaragua, Armenia, India, Guatemala, United States of America (USA), Israel, Australia, Colombia, and Belgium. This compilation is by no-means representative or all inclusive, and we encourage researchers to continue advancing global knowledge on COVID-19 health equity related issues, through rigorous research and generation of a strong evidence base of new empirical studies in this field.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Digital Health Equity and COVID-19: The Innovation Curve Cannot Reinforce the Social Gradient of Health

            Digital health innovations have been rapidly implemented and scaled to provide solutions to health delivery challenges posed by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This has provided people with ongoing access to vital health services while minimizing their potential exposure to infection and allowing them to maintain social distancing. However, these solutions may have unintended consequences for health equity. Poverty, lack of access to digital health, poor engagement with digital health for some communities, and barriers to digital health literacy are some factors that can contribute to poor health outcomes. We present the Digital Health Equity Framework, which can be used to consider health equity factors. Along with person-centered care, digital health equity should be incorporated into health provider training and should be championed at the individual, institutional, and social levels. Important future directions will be to develop measurement-based approaches to digital health equity and to use these findings to further validate and refine this model.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Ethical guidelines for COVID-19 tracing apps

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                oraliagr@alumni.ubc.ca
                Journal
                Can J Public Health
                Can J Public Health
                Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0008-4263
                1920-7476
                16 March 2021
                : 1-5
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.418246.d, ISNI 0000 0001 0352 641X, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, ; 655 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4R4 Canada
                [2 ]GRID grid.17091.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 2288 9830, School of Population and Public Health, , University of British Columbia, ; Vancouver, BC Canada
                [3 ]CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network, Vancouver, BC Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6632-564X
                Article
                487
                10.17269/s41997-021-00487-7
                7962628
                33725332
                d65e108e-19b5-47df-b8bb-b32cdfd60cf9
                © The Canadian Public Health Association 2021

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 28 August 2020
                : 28 January 2021
                Categories
                Special Section on COVID-19: Commentary

                public health,digital technologies,social justice,ethics,health equity,digital health,emergency response,santé publique,technologies numériques,justice sociale,éthique,équité en santé,santé numérique,intervention d’urgence

                Comments

                Comment on this article