Digital contact tracing technologies (DCTT) are used in public health surveillance to support rapid reporting, data management and analysis with the intention to improve the efficacy of the health system. One form DCTT that has been receiving attention in many countries facing COVID-19 epidemics is proximity tracking. Globally 47 contact tracing apps are available and for maximally effective for contact identification it should be adopted by 60-75% of a country’s population. But no country could achieve this in near future. Even with no proven efficacy for controlling the present pandemic and it has been deployed in several countries at unprecedented swiftness and in an unregulated environment. From a public health perspective, the essentiality of DCTT can be approved only if it is proved to be necessary, proportionate and sufficiently effective. Any public health measure is ethically correct, if it provides sufficient public health benefit to justify the burdens associated with it. In this context global health experts like WHO, Johns Hopikins university and Oxford university released recommendations on ethics and governance on the use of DCTT. Based on this principle a public health ethical review was done using available literature. Currently, there are no established methods for assessing the effectiveness of digital proximity tracking. More research to evaluate their effectiveness is needed. Governments, developers must ensure that COVID-19 contact- tracing apps satisfactorily address the ethical questions and must ensure the necessary but least intrusive measures for disease surveillance.

No abstract

Background: Investigations of health-related quality-of life (HRQoL) in acute kidney injury (AKI) have been limited in number, size, and domains assessed. We surveyed AKI survivors to describe the range of HRQoL AKI-related experiences and examine potential differences in AKI impacts by gender and age at AKI episode. Methods: AKI survivors among American Association of Kidney Patients (AAKP) completed an anonymous online survey in September 2020. We assessed: (1) socio-demographics, (2) impacts of AKI - physical, emotional, social, and (3) perceptions about interactions with healthcare providers using quantitative and qualitative items. Results: Respondents were 124 adult AKI survivors. 84% reported that the AKI episode was very/extremely impactful on physical/emotional health. Fifty-seven percent reported being very/extremely concerned about AKI effects on work and 67% were concerned about AKI effects on family. Only 52% of respondents rated medical team communication as very/extremely good. Individuals ages 22-65 at AKI episode were more likely than younger/older counterparts to rate the AKI episode as highly impactful overall (90% vs 63% younger and 75% older individuals; p = 0.040), more impactful on family (78% vs 50% and 46%; p = 0.008) and more impactful on work (74% vs 38% and 10%; p < 0.001). Limitations of this work include convenience sampling, retrospective data collection, and unknown AKI severity. Conclusions: These findings are a critical step forward in understanding the range of AKI experiences/consequences. Future research should incorporate more comprehensive HRQoL measures and healthcare professionals should consider providing more information in their patient communication about AKI and follow-up.

No abstract

No abstract