Data

General Issues
Science & Technology
Health
Economics
Specific Topics
Public Safety
Collections
Citizens Voices & Values on Covid-19
Location
New South Wales
Australia
Scope of Influence
National
Start Date
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Research
Approach
Consultation
Research
Spectrum of Public Participation
Consult
Total Number of Participants
43
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Recruit or select participants
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Propose and/or develop policies, ideas, and recommendations
Specific Methods, Tools & Techniques
Deliberation
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Facilitator Training
Professional Facilitators
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Online
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Ask & Answer Questions
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Information & Learning Resources
Written Briefing Materials
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
General Agreement/Consensus
Primary Organizer/Manager
Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values
Type of Organizer/Manager
Academic Institution

CASE

Deliberative Consultation on Trade-offs Related to Using 'COVIDSafe' Contact Tracing Technology

General Issues
Science & Technology
Health
Economics
Specific Topics
Public Safety
Collections
Citizens Voices & Values on Covid-19
Location
New South Wales
Australia
Scope of Influence
National
Start Date
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Research
Approach
Consultation
Research
Spectrum of Public Participation
Consult
Total Number of Participants
43
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Recruit or select participants
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Propose and/or develop policies, ideas, and recommendations
Specific Methods, Tools & Techniques
Deliberation
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Facilitator Training
Professional Facilitators
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Online
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Ask & Answer Questions
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Information & Learning Resources
Written Briefing Materials
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
General Agreement/Consensus
Primary Organizer/Manager
Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values
Type of Organizer/Manager
Academic Institution

This project explores the trade-offs in using contact tracing technology to manage the risk of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Participants make recommendations on how contact tracing technology should and shouldn't be used as a precondition for re-opening organisations and businesses.

Problems and Purpose

In April 2020, the Australian government launched the COVIDSafe app. This application constitutes a tool for public health authorities to slow the spread of COVID-19 in Australia by facilitating the identification and containment of outbreaks [1]. Using Bluetooth™ technology, the application identifies people that may have been in contact with someone who tested positive for the virus. This technology's usefulness depends on a high volume of users, but it raises concerns about surveillance, discrimination, and data privacy. The government tried to address these by adopting legislation that notably makes it an offense to require an individual to have the application [2]. Considering the trade-offs related to this contact tracing technology, the purpose of this deliberative initiative is to provide recommendations for government, agencies, and public and private organizations on how the application should be used in Australia.

Background History and Context

This deliberative process builds on research done by the organizers on community juries' role in assessing different technological strategies to enhance communicable disease surveillance in Australia [3]. 

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence & Values at the University of Wollongong is convening this initiative in collaboration with the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID) and the University of Sydney. 

Participant Recruitment and Selection

There were 43 participants in six deliberative groups. Due to the nature of the issue, the first three deliberative groups were drawn from participants in a previous study on preferences for "technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance." Participants for the other three groups were recruited through random stratified sampling by external research group, Taverner Research. Participants received a remuneration of $100 for taking part. [4]

Each deliberative group had between 6 and 8 members, and the participants were selected to reflect the diversity of the region (New South Wales, Australia). 

Methods and Tools Used

The deliberative process is inspired by the Citizens’ Jury method. There were six deliberative groups who were tasked with considering the privacy issues around the use of the COVIDsafe app, and how to best use it for contact tracing. [5]

The groups heard from experts before engaging in a facilitated discussion. Participants received a handout before the event that contained the questions asked by the facilitator and background information. The groups met online via the platform Zoom. 

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The participants received an information handout before the workshops to familiarize themselves with questions to be addressed in the project: the COVIDSafe app, contact tracing technologies, and the legislative measure adopted by the Australian Government. Participants met for one session of 2.5 hours on a weekday evening or weekend. At the beginning of the workshops was a familiarisation session, and then they proceeded to participate in a polling task before engaging in a 20 minute discussion in response to questions in the polling task. [6]

Participants then heard from experts (via pre-recorded presentations) about the contact tracing technology, its benefits, and the issues it engenders. These experts attended the meetings and participants had the opportunity to ask questions and share their thoughts. [7]

Following the expert presentations, the small group of participants will then take part in a facilitated discussion. The objective of this deliberation is to formulate policy recommendations on how the COVIDSafe app should or should not be used in Australia. The participants will be required to reach a consensus on the following questions (which were also asked at the start of the workshop) [8] & [9]: 

  1. Is this legislation appropriate to the current circumstances? Has the legislation gone too far, or not far enough?
  2. What conditions, if any, should be placed on government-subsidized services that have a higher risk of COVID-19 transmission, such as public transport (e.g. should operators be able to refuse service to anyone who does not have the COVIDSafe app operating on their mobile phone)?
  3. Should organizations and businesses that created conditions where there is a higher-risk of viral transmission be able to refuse employment, service, or participation to anyone who does not have the COVIDSafe app operating on their mobile phone such as:  
  4. workplaces (e.g. hospitals, factories) 
  5. commercial businesses (e.g. restaurants, hairdressers)
  6. community organizations (e.g. community sports) 

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

It was found that citizens were willing to sacrifice some personal privacy for the benefit of the greater good during times of crisis. This is heightened when a government can show the benefits of doing so, however, it is likely that there are other conditions that need to be met for citizens to actually take action in this way. [10]

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Organizers acknowledged limitations of this initiative as the groups were made up of "engaged citizens" who might have different views to those of the rest of community. Other limitations may have been the online meeting format which required a different level of engagement and that the meetings were held in English. However, strengths of this approach praised the nature of deliberative methods which call for more in-depth discussion and transfer of ideas between citizens and experts. [11]


See Also

Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence & Values

References

 [1] Department of Health, Australian Government, https://www.health.gov.au/resources/apps-and-tools/covidsafe-app

 [2]  Department of Health, Australian Government,  https://www.health.gov.au/using-our-websites/privacy/privacy-policy-for-covidsafe-app

[3| For an overview of the community juries, see Chris Degeling et al., 2020, “Community perspectives on the benefits and risks of technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance systems: a report on four community juries,” BMC Medical Ethics 21: 31. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186...

[4] Degeling, C., Hall, J., Johnson, J., Abbas, R., Bag, S. & Gilbert, G.L. (2022). Should Digital Contact Tracing Technologies be used to Control COVID-19? Perspectives from an Australian Public Deliberation. Health Care Analysis, 30(1), 97-114. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10728-021-00441-1

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Provided by Dr. Chris Degeling

[10] Degeling, C., Hall, J., Johnson, J., Abbas, R., Bag, S. & Gilbert, G.L. (2022). Should Digital Contact Tracing Technologies be used to Control COVID-19? Perspectives from an Australian Public Deliberation. Health Care Analysis, 30(1), 97-114. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10728-021-00441-1

[11] Ibid.

External Links

Notes

This entry was written in collaboration with Dr. Chris Degeling.