Righi Elda, Mirandola Massimo, Grossi Alessandra Agnese, Akova Murat, Tacconelli Evelina, Fratucello Anna, Nasim Asma, Barac Aleksandra, Yahav Dafna
Infectious Diseases Division, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Infectious Diseases Division, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2025 Feb;31(2):282-289. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2024.10.021. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
COVID-19 unravelled new ethical issues in the neglected field of infectious diseases ethics (IDE). We investigated IDE involvement among infectious diseases professionals.
A global survey was disseminated during 2021-2022. Responses were stratified by demographics, WHO region, income, and ethics training. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to identify two themes representing IDE relevant areas (theme 1, including stigma, inequity, vulnerability, public health, and global impact) and emerging topics (theme 2, including inequity and research integrity in COVID-19, increased ethics interest, and gaps in IDE). Quantile and logistic regression analyses investigated determinants of ethics themes and responders' ethics attitude.
We included 477 participants from 71 countries. Most were females (282/460, 61%) and clinicians (327/457, 72%). Participants advocated further personal (289/443, 65%) or societies' (374/450, 83%) involvement in bioethics. Only 5% (22/477) of respondents claimed to have received enough bioethics training and 28% (114/412) were dissatisfied with it. Dedicated courses or expert case discussion were the preferred ways for receiving education in bioethics. Theme 1 and 2 median values were above 7 (on a 1-10 scale), showing high interest in IDE. Confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal and acceptable fit, respectively. Being from the region of Americas was associated with theme 1, whereas having received bioethics training was associated with both themes. Females and respondents from the Americas and Europe regions reported lower involvement in bioethics activities, whereas those aged between 44 and 54 years and trained in bioethics were more involved. Age above 55 years and nonclinical role were negatively associated with aspiration for further bioethics involvement.
We identified IDE themes that can inform on gaps in bioethics. Ethics training was associated with interest in IDE and bioethics activities and should be offered to integrate this discipline into daily clinical practice across age, gender, and different areas worldwide.
