Article in Nature lists main scientific consensus to end Covid

by

A study produced by nearly 400 scientists from 112 countries and territories sought to list measures to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic with the highest degree of scientific consensus.

The methodology, which uses a technique called Delphi (several rounds of questionnaires before a panel of experts to reach a final decision), considered the responses of researchers, government leaders, health authorities and NGOs to generate a list of guidelines to put end to Covid.

At the end of at least three rounds, with a response rate of more than 80% of participants, the scientists arrived at 41 guidelines and 57 recommendations with a high degree of consensus, which governments can use to define public policy.

The article, published this Thursday (3) in the scientific journal Nature, is led by Jeffrey Lazarus, director of the health systems research group at the Instituto Global de Saúde de Barcelona (ISGlobal), in Spain. The research also includes Brazilian scientists, from Fiocruz Bahia, UFBA, the Solidarity Research Network, linked to the USP political science department, and the Covid-19 BR Observatory, among others.

“Despite important scientific advances over the past two and a half years, the response to Covid has been hampered by political, social and behavioral factors such as misinformation, vaccine hesitancy, absent global coordinated action and unequal distribution of inputs, vaccines and treatments,” wrote the authors.

The different types of measures listed were divided into six categories: health system, prevention, communication, treatment and care, pandemic inequalities and vaccination.

Among the three recommendations with the highest degree of consensus (100%) are actions among all members of society to control and prevent epidemics, adoption of measures in all spheres of government (for example, different ministries) to solve the main challenges of the health system and the “vaccine plus” prevention strategy, in which vaccination against Covid is considered one, but not the only, measure to end the pandemic.

Other recommendations with a high degree of consensus were the perception that the virus remains a health problem in many places and that the pandemic will not end if collective efforts are not made; the importance of direct and clear communication by health authorities and specialists to the population; and actions to tackle global inequality, including providing tools for the poorest countries to produce and purchase highly effective vaccines and medicines.

The recommendations cited in the article can serve as a basis for decisions with a high degree of confidence to end Covid as a global public health threat. “The Covid pandemic is not over yet, despite local individual efforts to resume cultural, social, political, religious, economic, health and education activities”, the authors recall.

The health crisis has already caused more than 630 million global infections, with 6.5 million deaths, although these numbers are very likely to be underreported.

According to Maurício Barreto, an epidemiologist and professor at UFBA and one of the authors, the study should be read as a set of these final decisions, and can be consulted by a politician who is interested in adopting a strategy. “The scope of the research is the formation of consensus, nobody is proposing a new technology to fight the coronavirus, but showing that there are several issues to be addressed. And it can be used as an experiment for other diseases that may arise”, he adds.

To reach the high level of scientific consensus, the study initially relied on four scientists from ISGlobal, who coordinated the study. From there, 40 researchers were chosen to work on the formulation of the questions. These were also responsible for nominating other colleagues and experts from different countries. In the end, 386 scientists, authorities, NGO members or health leaders were selected, with more than half being from low- and middle-income countries (195 or 51%).

According to Barreto, representativeness in the research was important because the greater the diversity of the participants, the greater the divergence in relation to one measure or another.

“Of course, there are issues where consensus is not questioned, such as the vaccine, but other points may have a lower or higher level of consensus, for example in relation to funding to produce vaccines. The technique [Delphi] seeks to unite experts who have knowledge on the subject but who represent different interests, from different regions of the world, to reach a consensus”, he explains.

The analysis of the research took place through questionnaires, which went through at least three cycles of responses. In the first one, the scientists collected demographic information from the participants and produced 42 statements. More than 1,400 comments in the texts were considered and analyzed according to content.

In the second cycle, 328 participants responded and reviewed 43 different statements and 53 more recommendations. Scientists from the study’s coordinating nucleus then assessed the main points of divergence in the first two cycles.

Ultimately, about 80% of the expert panel members arrived at the final key guidelines and recommendations. Most statements had a high degree of agreement (between 90% and 100%).


You May Also Like

Recommended for you