scholarly journals Are public health experts providing useful information for the control of COVID-19 pandemic?

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marleen Bekker
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
Future Improvement ◽  
Health Experts

Abstract The decision-making is always a complex process that should be based on best available scientific evidence and experts judgments. COVID-19 pandemic has added more complexity to this process, demanding a fluid, accurate and rapid respond from public health experts and science. This panellist together with the rest of speakers will help us to revise this process to identify possible gaps and space of future improvement.

scholarly journals Public health decisions in the COVID-19 pandemic require more than ‘follow the science’

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107134
Author(s):  
Thana Cristina de Campos-Rudinsky ◽  
Eduardo Undurraga
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Ethical Reasoning ◽  
Reliable Data ◽  
Good Decision

Although empirical evidence may provide a much desired sense of certainty amidst a pandemic characterised by uncertainty, the vast gamut of available COVID-19 data, including misinformation, has instead increased confusion and distrust in authorities’ decisions. One key lesson we have been gradually learning from the COVID-19 pandemic is that the availability of empirical data and scientific evidence alone do not automatically lead to good decisions. Good decision-making in public health policy, this paper argues, does depend on the availability of reliable data and rigorous analyses, but depends above all on sound ethical reasoning that ascribes value and normative judgement to empirical facts.

Confirmation Bias

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara E. Gorman ◽  
Jack M. Gorman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
New York ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Baseball Player ◽  
Active Process ◽  
Disconfirming Evidence ◽  
Health Experts ◽  
True Science

One of America’s greatest scientists summarized confirmation bias well when he quipped, “I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it.”That scientist was the great Hall of Famer and New York Yankee baseball player Yogi Berra. How do we know Yogi Berra said that? One of us once heard someone say that he did, and it sounds like the kind of thing that has been attributed to him. Of course, there are those who say that Yogi didn’t say many of the things attributed to him and that there are actually perfectly logical explanations for some of the seemingly nonsensical statements he allegedly did utter. But we don’t care about any of that. We love the line, it makes our point well, and we are going to stick to the Yogi attribu¬tion no matter what kind of disconfirming evidence crops up. As Yogi might have said, “When you come to a piece of evidence that doesn’t agree with what you already believe, tear it to shreds and then ignore it.” Confirmation bias refers to our tendency to attend only to information that agrees with what we already think is true. Notice that we did not simply say that this bias involves ignoring evidence that is incompatible with our beliefs but rather that it is an active process in which we selectively pay attention to those things that confirm our hypotheses. Confirmation bias is responsible for not only a great deal of denial of scientific evidence but also the actual generation and maintenance of incorrect scientific information. That is, scientists, doctors, and public health experts are as prone as anyone else is to “seeing what we believe,” making it especially difficult to help people sort out what is true science from the mistakes and outright fabrications. As we will see, confirmation bias is strongly rooted in primitive needs and emotion and therefore not amenable to correction merely by reciting facts. Although confirmation bias is irrational in the sense that it does not take into consideration evidence, it is still frequently adaptive and even necessary.

Evidence-Based Decision-Making for a Public Health Emergency in China: Easier Said Than Done

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 720-724
Author(s):  
Liwei Zhang ◽  
Kelin Chen ◽  
Ji Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Local Government ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Behavioral Pattern ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Governance Reform ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

This article aims to argue that evidence-based decision-making for a public health emergency is “easier said than done” reflected on COVID-19 response in China. For the local government, the behavioral pattern is prone to blame-avoiding instead of making decision following scientific evidence and experts’ advice. However, such behavior is not based on completely subjective judgment but a rational choice for the local government. Some consequences associated with China’s response to COVID-19 reveals an inflexible administrative system. Therefore, China’s governance reform should focus on empowering local governments with more flexibility and resilience, which enables local governments to make independent and scientific decisions in an emergency.

scholarly journals Fracking and glyphosate amid COVID-19 pandemic in Colombia

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Fabián Méndez Paz ◽  
Laura A. Laura A. Rodríguez-Villamizar ◽  
Alvaro Javier Idrovo
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Social Inequalities ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
International Agency ◽  
Adverse Health Effects ◽  
Colombian Government ◽  
The Government

Despite the congratulations that Colombia received from the Pan American Health Organization for its good management during the first months of pandemic (1), supposedly for using scientific evidence for decision-making, the start of the fracking pilots (unconventional hydraulic fracturing procedure) and return to use glyphosate against illicit crops leaves glimpse inconsistencies in decision-making in public health by the Colombian government. The pandemic taught that environmental protection is essential to avoid the emergence of future epidemics (2). However, it is precisely in the midst of the pandemic that the Colombian government makes decisions without listening to science, ignoring the precautionary principle even against the national constitution. As of the end of March 2021, two unconventional reservoir fracking pilot projects had been approved for development without a rigorous assessment of the potentially associated adverse health effects (3). These will be carried out in the department of Santander, the most seismically active department in Colombia (4). On the other hand, the government is making the return of glyphosate a reality, as previously mentioned (5). The Decree 380 (April 12, 2021) regulates spraying with glyphosate, leaving only the National Narcotics Council to endorse the decision. This Decree was even signed by the current Minister of Health, Fernando Ruiz, who was Vice Minister of Health in 2015 and publicly endorsed then to ban the use of glyphosate because of its potential carcinogenic effects, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This change in the government´s decision is not explained on scientific grounds, as the evidence supporting the adverse effects of glyphosate on health remains even more conclusive now (6). These two political decisions are added to others that aggravate the armed internal conflict in Colombia, precisely when next year there will be presidential elections. Anti-science in environmental health increases its power in Colombia, following the trend of Latin American countries with denialist governments such as Brazil. The territories and populations directly affected by these decisions are the most socioeconomically disadvantaged in the country. Perhaps for this reason it is not surprising that the Colombian scientific evidence shows that the policies implemented in the management of the pandemic have not succeeded in reducing social inequalities (7), but have probably widened them, and that public health surveillance has been limited, with achievements only in some regions (8).

scholarly journals Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: can HTA improve preparedness and response in emergencies with a high degree of uncertainty?

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Timen ◽  
A Miglietta
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
High Degree ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Evidence-based decision-making is central to public health. Implementing evidence-informed actions is most challenging during a public health emergency as in an epidemic, when time is limited, scientific uncertainties and political pressures tend to be high, and irrefutable evidence may be lacking. The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak is determining a scenario of uncertainty for public health decision-making with fragmented and different responses also within countries (i.e. regional level), which are implemented quickly, sometimes not fully supported by the necessary body of scientific evidence. In such a situation, following a common line and having a shared tool that would allow to include evidence in public health decision-making, would be strategic to strengthen the impact of interventions, enabling stakeholders and decision makers taking actions based on the best available evidence through a process which is systematic and transparent. The objective of this presentation is to use the example of the COVID-19 outbreak, in order to explore how HTA can improve preparedness and response in emergencies with a high degree of uncertainty, representing the mechanisms through which interdisciplinary evidence feeds into decision-making processes during public health emergencies, addressing the link between scientific evidence and decision-making in public health emergencies, overcoming the key challenges faced by public health experts when advising decision makers, including strengthening and accelerating knowledge transfer through rapid HTA, improving networking between actors and disciplines.

Assessing the Electronic Evidence System Needs of Canadian Public Health Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bandna Dhaliwal ◽  
Sarah E Neil-Sztramko ◽  
Nikita Boston-Fisher ◽  
David L Buckeridge ◽  
Maureen Dobbins
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Host Institution ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Public Health Professionals

BACKGROUND True evidence-informed decision making in public health relies on incorporating evidence from a number of sources in addition to traditional scientific evidence. Lack of access to these types of data, as well as ease of use and interpretability of scientific evidence contribute to limited uptake of evidence-informed decision making in practice. An electronic evidence system that includes multiple sources of evidence and potentially novel computational processing approaches or artificial intelligence holds promise as a solution to overcoming barriers to evidence-informed decision making in public health. OBJECTIVE To understand the needs and preferences for an electronic evidence system among public health professionals in Canada. METHODS An invitation to participate in an anonymous online survey was distributed via listservs of two Canadian public health organizations. Eligible participants were English or French speaking individuals currently working in public health. The survey contained both multiple choice and open-ended questions about needs and preferences relevant to an electronic evidence system. Quantitative responses were analyzed to explore differences by public health role. Inductive and deductive analysis methods were used to code and interpret the qualitative data. Ethics review was not required by the host institution. RESULTS Respondents (n = 371) were heterogeneous, spanning organizations, positions, and areas of practice within public health. Nearly all (98.0%) respondents indicated that an electronic evidence system would support their work. Respondents had high preferences for local contextual data, research and intervention evidence, and information about human and financial resources. Qualitative analyses identified a number of concerns, needs, and suggestions for development of such a system. Concerns ranged from personal use of such a system, to the ability of their organization to use such a system. Identified needs spanned the different sources of evidence including local context, research and intervention evidence, and resources and tools. Additional suggestions were identified to improve system usability. CONCLUSIONS Canadian public health professionals have positive perceptions towards an electronic evidence system that would bring together evidence from the local context, scientific research, and resources. Elements were also identified to increase the usability of an electronic evidence system.

scholarly journals Institutional strengthening for evidence-based health policies in the DR Congo (RIPSEC): Impact

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Mwembo-Tambwe ◽  
F Chenge ◽  
B Criel
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
District Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
Systems Research

Abstract Issue In the DRC, the need to strengthen the health system for a more equitable charge of the health of the population in a perspective of universal health coverage proves to be relevant. Develop a culture that promotes decision-making based on scientific evidence, essential to improve the overall performance of the health system from this perspective Description of the Problem The RIPSEC program aims to (i) develop the capacity to manage health knowledge in the DRC through the creation of a Health Knowledge Center in the DRC, (CCSC- Asbl); to strengthen the scientific capacity of the Public Health Schools and the National Institute of Biomedical Research in health systems research and education and to strengthen the training capacity of the Public Health Schools by Development of Learning and Research Health Districts (LRHD). We assess the level of achievement of the results of this program. Results The majority of objectives have been reached.The CCSC-Asbl, created is an autonomous institution with legal personality. It produces scientific evidence and support for decision-making. The Ministry of Health has been strengthened and diversified. Institutional capacities and visibility have been strengthened through continuing education and the publication of scientific articles. But, no doctorals theses has been completed yet. Establishment of a consultation framework for health science training institutes: online training, short-term joint training on health system research. The third component concerns the development of LHRD; Transformation processes in the district went through a strengthening of the capacity of the district health teams and via a process of action-research. Lessons The RIPSEC program is increasingly becoming part of the Congolese health system as a strong partner. Key messages This experience can be used elsewhere in different contexts This program could be continued to perpetuate these fragile achievements. It corresponds to the felt needs and the priority of the health education system in the DRC or elsewhere.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document