Background Women’s mobile health (mHealth) is a growing phenomenon in the mobile app global market. An increasing number of women worldwide use apps geared to female audiences (female technology). Given the often private and sensitive nature of the data collected by such apps, an ethical assessment from the perspective of data privacy, sharing, and security policies is warranted. Objective The purpose of this scoping review and content analysis was to assess the privacy policies, data sharing, and security policies of women’s mHealth apps on the current international market (the App Store on the Apple operating system [iOS] and Google Play on the Android system). Methods We reviewed the 23 most popular women’s mHealth apps on the market by focusing on publicly available apps on the App Store and Google Play. The 23 downloaded apps were assessed manually by 2 independent reviewers against a variety of user data privacy, data sharing, and security assessment criteria. Results All 23 apps collected personal health-related data. All apps allowed behavioral tracking, and 61% (14/23) of the apps allowed location tracking. Of the 23 apps, only 16 (70%) displayed a privacy policy, 12 (52%) requested consent from users, and 1 (4%) had a pseudoconsent. In addition, 13% (3/23) of the apps collected data before obtaining consent. Most apps (20/23, 87%) shared user data with third parties, and data sharing information could not be obtained for the 13% (3/23) remaining apps. Of the 23 apps, only 13 (57%) provided users with information on data security. Conclusions Many of the most popular women’s mHealth apps on the market have poor data privacy, sharing, and security standards. Although regulations exist, such as the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, current practices do not follow them. The failure of the assessed women’s mHealth apps to meet basic data privacy, sharing, and security standards is not ethically or legally acceptable.

Background The recent introduction of COVID-19 certificates in several countries, including the introduction of the European green pass, has been met with protests and concerns by a fraction of the population. In Italy, the green pass has been used as a nudging measure to incentivize vaccinations because a valid green pass is needed to enter restaurants, bars, museums, or stadiums. As of December 2021, a valid green pass can be obtained by being fully vaccinated with an approved vaccine, recovered from COVID-19, or tested. However, a green pass obtained with a test has a short validity (48 hours for the rapid test, 72 hours for the polymerase chain reaction test) and does not allow access to several indoor public places. Objective This study aims to understand and describe the concerns of individuals opposed to the green pass in Italy, the main arguments of their discussions, and their characterization. Methods We collected data from Telegram chats and analyzed the arguments and concerns that were raised by the users by using a mixed methods approach. Results Most individuals opposing the green pass share antivaccine views, but doubts and concerns about vaccines are generally not among the arguments raised to oppose the green pass. Instead, the discussion revolves around the legal aspects and the definition of personal freedom. We explain the differences and similarities between antivaccine and anti–green pass discourses, and we discuss the ethical ramifications of our research, focusing on the use of Telegram chats as a social listening tool for public health. Conclusions A large portion of individuals opposed to the green pass share antivaccine views. We suggest public health and political institutions to provide a legal explanation and a context for the use of the green pass, as well as to continue focusing on vaccine communication to inform vaccine-hesitant individuals. Further work is needed to define a consensual ethical framework for social listening for public health.

The recent outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is posing many different challenges to local communities, directly affected by the pandemic, and to the global community, trying to find how to respond to this threat in a larger scale. The history of the Eyam Plague, read in light of Ross Upshur’s Four Principles for the Justification of Public Health Intervention, and of the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, could provide useful guidance in navigating the complex ethical issues that arise when quarantine measures need to be put in place.

BACKGROUND The recent introduction of COVID-19 certificates in several countries, including the introduction of a European Green Pass, has been met with protests and concerns by a fraction of the population. In Italy, the Green Pass has been used as a nudging measure to incentivize vaccinations, since unvaccinated people are not allowed to enter restaurants and bars, museums, or stadiums. OBJECTIVE This study aims to understand and describe the concerns of anti-green pass individuals in Italy, the main arguments of discussion, and their characterization. METHODS We collected data from Telegram chats and analyzed with a mixed-methods approach the arguments and the concerns that were raised by the users. RESULTS Most individuals opposing the green pass share anti-vaccine views, but that doubts and concerns about vaccines are not often among the arguments raised to oppose the green pass. Instead, the discussion revolves around legal aspects and the definition of personal freedom. Further, we explain the nature of the dichotomy and similarity between anti-vaccine and anti-green pass discourse, and we discuss the ethical ramifications of our research, focusing on the use of Telegram chats as a social listening tool for public health. CONCLUSIONS A large fraction of anti-green pass individuals share anti-vaccine views. We suggest public health and political institutions to provide a legal explanation and a context for the use of the green pass, as well as to continue focusing on vaccine communication to inform hesitant individuals. Further work is needed to define a consensual ethical framework for social listening for public health.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the way we create and evaluate information, and this is happening during an infodemic, which has been having marked effects on global health. Here, we evaluate whether recruited individuals can distinguish disinformation from accurate information, structured in the form of tweets, and determine whether a tweet is organic or synthetic, i.e., whether it has been written by a Twitter user or by the AI model GPT-3. The results of our preregistered study, including 697 participants, show that GPT-3 is a double-edge sword: In comparison with humans, it can produce accurate information that is easier to understand, but it can also produce more compelling disinformation. We also show that humans cannot distinguish between tweets generated by GPT-3 and written by real Twitter users. Starting from our results, we reflect on the dangers of AI for disinformation and on how information campaigns can be improved to benefit global health.