Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly applied in healthcare. The expansion of AI in healthcare necessitates AI-related ethical issues to be studied and addressed. This systematic scoping review was conducted to identify the ethical issues of AI application in healthcare, to highlight gaps, and to propose steps to move towards an evidence-informed approach for addressing them. A systematic search was conducted to retrieve all articles examining the ethical aspects of AI application in healthcare from Medline (PubMed) and Embase (OVID), published between 2010 and July 21, 2020. The search terms were “artificial intelligence” or “machine learning” or “deep learning” in combination with “ethics” or “bioethics”. The studies were selected utilizing a PRISMA flowchart and predefined inclusion criteria. Ethical principles of respect for human autonomy, prevention of harm, fairness, explicability, and privacy were charted. The search yielded 2166 articles, of which 18 articles were selected for data charting on the basis of the predefined inclusion criteria. The focus of many articles was a general discussion about ethics and AI. Nevertheless, there was limited examination of ethical principles in terms of consideration for design or deployment of AI in most retrieved studies. In the few instances where ethical principles were considered, fairness, preservation of human autonomy, explicability and privacy were equally discussed. The principle of prevention of harm was the least explored topic. Practical tools for testing and upholding ethical requirements across the lifecycle of AI-based technologies are largely absent from the body of reported evidence. In addition, the perspective of different stakeholders is largely missing.

How will the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic develop in the coming months and years? Based on an expert survey, we examine key aspects that are likely to influence the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The challenges and developments will strongly depend on the progress of national and global vaccination programs, the emergence and spread of variants of concern (VOCs), and public responses to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In the short term, many people remain unvaccinated, VOCs continue to emerge and spread, and mobility and population mixing are expected to increase. Therefore, lifting restrictions too much and too early risk another damaging wave. This challenge remains despite the reduced opportunities for transmission given vaccination progress and reduced indoor mixing in summer 2021. In autumn 2021, increased indoor activity might accelerate the spread again, whilst a necessary reintroduction of NPIs might be too slow. The incidence may strongly rise again, possibly filling intensive care units, if vaccination levels are not high enough. A moderate, adaptive level of NPIs will thus remain necessary. These epidemiological aspects combined with economic, social, and health-related consequences provide a more holistic perspective on the future of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: An infodemic is excess information, including false or misleading information, that spreads in digital and physical environments during a public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an unprecedented global infodemic that has led to confusion about the benefits of medical and public health interventions, with substantial impact on risk-taking and health-seeking behaviors, eroding trust in health authorities and compromising the effectiveness of public health responses and policies. Standardized measures are needed to quantify the harmful impacts of the infodemic in a systematic and methodologically robust manner, as well as harmonizing highly divergent approaches currently explored for this purpose. This can serve as a foundation for a systematic, evidence-based approach to monitoring, identifying, and mitigating future infodemic harms in emergency preparedness and prevention. Objective: In this paper, we summarize the Fifth World Health Organization (WHO) Infodemic Management Conference structure, proceedings, outcomes, and proposed actions seeking to identify the interdisciplinary approaches and frameworks needed to enable the measurement of the burden of infodemics. Methods: An iterative human-centered design (HCD) approach and concept mapping were used to facilitate focused discussions and allow for the generation of actionable outcomes and recommendations. The discussions included 86 participants representing diverse scientific disciplines and health authorities from 28 countries across all WHO regions, along with observers from civil society and global public health–implementing partners. A thematic map capturing the concepts matching the key contributing factors to the public health burden of infodemics was used throughout the conference to frame and contextualize discussions. Five key areas for immediate action were identified. Results: The 5 key areas for the development of metrics to assess the burden of infodemics and associated interventions included (1) developing standardized definitions and ensuring the adoption thereof; (2) improving the map of concepts influencing the burden of infodemics; (3) conducting a review of evidence, tools, and data sources; (4) setting up a technical working group; and (5) addressing immediate priorities for postpandemic recovery and resilience building. The summary report consolidated group input toward a common vocabulary with standardized terms, concepts, study designs, measures, and tools to estimate the burden of infodemics and the effectiveness of infodemic management interventions. Conclusions: Standardizing measurement is the basis for documenting the burden of infodemics on health systems and population health during emergencies. Investment is needed into the development of practical, affordable, evidence-based, and systematic methods that are legally and ethically balanced for monitoring infodemics; generating diagnostics, infodemic insights, and recommendations; and developing interventions, action-oriented guidance, policies, support options, mechanisms, and tools for infodemic managers and emergency program managers.

The introduction of COVID-19 vaccination passes (VPs) by many countries coincided with the Delta variant fast becoming dominant across Europe. A thorough assessment of their impact on epidemic dynamics is still lacking. Here, we propose the VAP-SIRS model that considers possibly lower restrictions for the VP holders than for the rest of the population, imperfect vaccination effectiveness against infection, rates of (re-)vaccination and waning immunity, fraction of never-vaccinated, and the increased transmissibility of the Delta variant. Some predicted epidemic scenarios for realistic parameter values yield new COVID-19 infection waves within two years, and high daily case numbers in the endemic state, even without introducing VPs and granting more freedom to their holders. Still, suitable adaptive policies can avoid unfavorable outcomes. While VP holders could initially be allowed more freedom, the lack of full vaccine effectiveness and increased transmissibility will require accelerated (re-)vaccination, wide-spread immunity surveillance, and/or minimal long-term common restrictions.

The 40th anniversary of the World Health Organization Alma-Ata Declaration in Astana offered the impetus to discuss the extent to which integrated primary health care (PHC) has been successfully implemented and its impact on research and practice. This paper focuses on the experiences from Greece in implementing primary health care reform and lessons learned from the conduct of evidence-based research. It critically examines what appears to be impeding the effective implementation of integrated PHC in a country affected by the financial and refugee crisis. The key challenges for establishing integrated people-centred primary care include availability of family physicians, information and communication technology, the prevention and management of chronic disease and migrant and refugees’ health. Policy recommendations are formulated to guide the primary health care reform in Greece, while attempting to inform efforts in other countries with similar conditions.