In order to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers around the globe have increasingly invested in digital health technologies to support the 'test, track and trace' approach of containing the spread of the novel coronavirus. These technologies include mobile 'contact tracing' applications (apps), which can trace individuals likely to have come into contact with those who have reported symptoms or tested positive for the virus and request that they self-isolate. This paper takes a critical public health perspective that advocates for 'genuine participation' in public health interventions and emphasises the need to take citizen's knowledge into account during public health decision-making. In doing so, it presents and discusses the findings of a UK interview study that explored public views on the possibility of using a COVID-19 contact-tracing app public health intervention at the time the United Kingdom (UK) Government announced their decision to develop such a technology. Findings illustrated interviewees' range and degree of understandings, misconceptions, and concerns about the possibility of using an app. In particular, concerns about privacy and surveillance predominated. Interviewees associated these concerns much more broadly than health by identifying with pre-existent British national narratives associated with individual liberty and autonomy. In extending and contributing to ongoing sociological research with public health, we argue that understanding and responding to these matters is vital, and that our findings demonstrate the need for a forward-looking, anticipatory strategy for public engagement as part of the responsible innovation of the COVID-19 contacttracing app in the UK.
Please check your article carefully, coordinate with any co-authors and enter all inal edits clearly in the eproof, remembering to save frequently. Once corrections are submitted, we cannot routinely make further changes to the article.2. Note that the eproof should be amended in only one browser window at any one time; otherwise changes will be overwritten.3. Author surnames have been highlighted. Please check these carefully and adjust if the irst name or surname is marked up incorrectly. Note that changes here will affect indexing of your article in public repositories such as PubMed. Also, carefully check the spelling and numbering of all author names and af iliations, and the corresponding email address(es). If applicable, please ensure that any accession codes and datasets whoseDOIs or other identi iers are mentioned in the paper are scheduled for public release as soon as possible, we recommend within a few days of submitting your proof, and update the database record with publication details from this article once available. 5. Please con irm if all section level headings are correct. 6. Please update volume number and page number in reference 2 if the article is published. 7. Please provide additional publication details (like author name, publisher name, year etc) in references 4,5,6. 8. Please provide additional publication details (like author name, publisher name, year etc) in references 10,11. 9. Please provide additional publication details (like author name, publisher name, year etc) in references 14,15,16,17,18,19. 10. Please provide author name in reference 23. 11. Please provide additional publication details (like author name, publisher name, year etc) in references 25. 12. Please provide additional publication details (like author name, publisher name, year etc) in reference 28. 13. Please provide additional publication details (like author name, publisher name, year etc) in reference 30. 14. Please provide additional publication details in reference 35.
While the anonymization of biological samples and data may help protect participant privacy, there is still debate over whether this alone is a sufficient safeguard to ensure the ethical conduct of research. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine whether the review of an ethics committee is necessary in the context of anonymized research, and what the considerations in said ethics review would be. The review of normative documents issued by both national and international level organizations reveals a growing concern over the ability of anonymization procedures to prevent against reidentification. This is particularly true in the context of genomic research where genetic material's uniquely identifying nature along with advances in technology have complicated previous standards of identifiability. Even where individual identities may not be identifiable, there is the risk of group harm that may not be protected by anonymization alone. We conclude that the majority of normative documents support that the review of an ethics committee is necessary to address the concerns associated with the use of anonymized samples and data for research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.