Cargando…
Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020
Immunity certificates related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been under discussion since the beginning of the pandemic with conflicting opinions. In order to identify arguments in favor of and against the possible implementation of documents certifying immunity...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8416097/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34485215 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.682365 |
_version_ | 1783748106770186240 |
---|---|
author | Fargnoli, Vanessa Nehme, Mayssam Guessous, Idris Burton-Jeangros, Claudine |
author_facet | Fargnoli, Vanessa Nehme, Mayssam Guessous, Idris Burton-Jeangros, Claudine |
author_sort | Fargnoli, Vanessa |
collection | PubMed |
description | Immunity certificates related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been under discussion since the beginning of the pandemic with conflicting opinions. In order to identify arguments in favor of and against the possible implementation of documents certifying immunity of an individual based on serological testing, we developed a qualitative study in Geneva, Switzerland. The study took place between two lockdowns with a sense of semi-normalcy during summer 2020 in Switzerland but at a time when no vaccine was available and seroprevalence was below 21%. Eleven focus groups with members of the public and 14 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted between July and November 2020, with a total of 68 participants with an age range between 24 and 77 years. Interviews and focus groups transcripts were coded with the ATLAS.ti CAQDAS. Few participants considered immunity certificates based on serological testing as an acceptable public health measure. Major concerns included the reliability of scientific data related to COVID-19 immunity and serological testing potential re-infection as well as the possibility that the use of certificates could result in deleterious outcomes. Discrimination, counterfeiting, incitement for self-infection, invasion of the private sphere, violation of personal integrity, and violation of medical secrecy were perceived as the major risks. Benefits of immunity certificates were more perceived when in relation to vaccination, and included gains in medical knowledge and protection in certain contexts involving leisure or work-related activities. The consequences of implementing immunity certificates are numerous, and the acceptability by the general population has to be considered when engaging in such policy. Even if the results provide a snapshot of arguments discussed around immunity certificates based on serological testing before the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine, most of the issues discussed are central in the current debates about vaccination certificates. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8416097 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84160972021-09-04 Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020 Fargnoli, Vanessa Nehme, Mayssam Guessous, Idris Burton-Jeangros, Claudine Front Public Health Public Health Immunity certificates related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been under discussion since the beginning of the pandemic with conflicting opinions. In order to identify arguments in favor of and against the possible implementation of documents certifying immunity of an individual based on serological testing, we developed a qualitative study in Geneva, Switzerland. The study took place between two lockdowns with a sense of semi-normalcy during summer 2020 in Switzerland but at a time when no vaccine was available and seroprevalence was below 21%. Eleven focus groups with members of the public and 14 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted between July and November 2020, with a total of 68 participants with an age range between 24 and 77 years. Interviews and focus groups transcripts were coded with the ATLAS.ti CAQDAS. Few participants considered immunity certificates based on serological testing as an acceptable public health measure. Major concerns included the reliability of scientific data related to COVID-19 immunity and serological testing potential re-infection as well as the possibility that the use of certificates could result in deleterious outcomes. Discrimination, counterfeiting, incitement for self-infection, invasion of the private sphere, violation of personal integrity, and violation of medical secrecy were perceived as the major risks. Benefits of immunity certificates were more perceived when in relation to vaccination, and included gains in medical knowledge and protection in certain contexts involving leisure or work-related activities. The consequences of implementing immunity certificates are numerous, and the acceptability by the general population has to be considered when engaging in such policy. Even if the results provide a snapshot of arguments discussed around immunity certificates based on serological testing before the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine, most of the issues discussed are central in the current debates about vaccination certificates. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8416097/ /pubmed/34485215 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.682365 Text en Copyright © 2021 Fargnoli, Nehme, Guessous and Burton-Jeangros. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Public Health Fargnoli, Vanessa Nehme, Mayssam Guessous, Idris Burton-Jeangros, Claudine Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020 |
title | Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020 |
title_full | Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020 |
title_fullStr | Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020 |
title_full_unstemmed | Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020 |
title_short | Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020 |
title_sort | acceptability of covid-19 certificates: a qualitative study in geneva, switzerland, in 2020 |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8416097/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34485215 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.682365 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fargnolivanessa acceptabilityofcovid19certificatesaqualitativestudyingenevaswitzerlandin2020 AT nehmemayssam acceptabilityofcovid19certificatesaqualitativestudyingenevaswitzerlandin2020 AT guessousidris acceptabilityofcovid19certificatesaqualitativestudyingenevaswitzerlandin2020 AT burtonjeangrosclaudine acceptabilityofcovid19certificatesaqualitativestudyingenevaswitzerlandin2020 |