Back

Scientists' opinion, attitudes, and consensus towards immunity passports

Aranzales, I.; Chan, H. F.; Eichenberger, R.; Hegselmann, R.; Stadelmann, D.; Torgler, B.

2021-02-03 health policy
10.1101/2021.02.02.21250796
Show abstract

ObjectivesWe measured attitudes towards "immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19 of a large sample of scientists. Consensus of scientists opinions on a different aspect of immunity passports was assessed. MethodsWe designed and implemented a survey to capture what scientists from around the world and different scientific background think about immunity certification. The survey was sent to the corresponding authors of scholarly articles published in the last five years in the top 20-ranked journals in each of the 27 subject areas between May and June 2020. Responses from 12,738 scientists were captured, and their distribution was tabulated by participants in health science and other fields. Consensus of responses was calculated using a variant of Shannon Entropy, made suitable for the ordinal response variables. ResultsHalf of the scientists surveyed, regardless of academic background agree that a potential immunity passport program will be good for public health (50.2%) and the economy (54.4%), with 19.1% and 15.4% of participants disagree, respectively. A significant proportion of scientists raised concerns about immunity certification over fairness to others (36.5%) and social inequality (45.5%). There is little consensus in the different aspects of immunity passport among scientists. Overall, scientists with health background hold a more conservative view towards immunity certification. ConclusionsOur findings suggest a lack of general agreement regarding the potential health and economic benefits, societal costs, and ethical issues of an immunity certification program within the scientific community. Given the relevant and important implications of immunity passport due to the increasing vaccine availability and efficacy, more attention should be given to the discussion of the design and implementation of immunity certification program. Strengths and limitations of this studyO_LIFirst cross-disciplinary survey with a large and international sample size that enables mapping of scientists opinions and attitudes towards COVID-19 immunity certificates. C_LIO_LIFrom the survey responses, we measured, reported, and compared the levels of consensus of scientists between health-related and non-health-related discipline. C_LIO_LIResponse rate and sample representativeness are moderate. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 5%
16.8%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 26%
16.8%
3
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 26%
7.0%
4
Vaccines
based on 131 papers
Top 1%
5.8%
5
F1000Research
based on 28 papers
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
based on 54 papers
Top 0.8%
3.2%
7
BMC Public Health
based on 148 papers
Top 7%
3.1%
8
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
based on 11 papers
Top 0.5%
2.7%
9
PLOS Biology
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
2.7%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
based on 116 papers
Top 9%
2.5%
11
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 9%
1.9%
12
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
based on 100 papers
Top 7%
1.7%
13
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
14
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 11%
1.4%
15
Public Health
based on 34 papers
Top 3%
1.4%
16
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
based on 29 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
17
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 10%
1.3%
18
Medicine
based on 29 papers
Top 7%
0.9%
19
Nutrients
based on 43 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
20
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 19%
0.9%
21
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Social Science & Medicine
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
23
European Journal of Epidemiology
based on 36 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
24
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 137 papers
Top 9%
0.9%
25
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 13%
0.9%
26
Healthcare
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
based on 23 papers
Top 1%
0.9%
28
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
29
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
based on 45 papers
Top 12%
0.7%
30
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 31%
0.7%