Abstract
Background Several countries have implemented control measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 spread, including digital contact tracing, digital monitoring of quarantined individuals and testing of travelers. These raise ethical issues around privacy, personal freedoms and equity. However, little is known regarding public acceptability of these measures.
Methods In December 2020, we conducted surveys among 3635 respondents in Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia to understand public perceptions on the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 control measures.
Findings Hong Kong respondents were much less supportive of digital contact tracing and monitoring devices than those in Malaysia and Singapore. Around three-quarters of Hong Kong respondents perceived digital contact tracing as an unreasonable restriction of individual freedom; <20% trusted that there were adequate local provisions preventing these data being used for other purposes. This was the opposite in Singapore, where nearly three-quarters of respondents agreed that there were adequate data protection rules locally. In contrast, only a minority of Hong Kong respondents viewed mandatory testing and vaccination for travelers as unreasonable infringements of privacy or freedom. Less than two-thirds of respondents in all territories were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19, with a quarter of respondents undecided. However, support for differential travel restrictions for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals was high in all settings.
Interpretation Our findings highlight the importance of socio-political context in public perception of public health measures and emphasize the need to continually monitor public attitudes towards such measures to inform implementation and communication strategies.
Funding This work was funded by the World Health Organization.
Evidence before this study We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for research articles published between 29 February 2020 to 20 January 2021 to identify empirical studies on public perception of restrictive and control measures imposed during COVID-19. We used the following terms: “COVID-19”, “SARS-COV-2”, “pandemic”, “public”, “population”, “survey”, “cross-sectional”, “national”, “international”, “perception”, “attitudes”, “opinions”, “views”, “acceptance”, “acceptability”, “support”, “ethics”, “restrictive measures”, “restrictions”, “control measures”, travel”, “contact tracing”, “testing”, “tests”, “quarantine”, “monitoring”, “vaccines” “vaccination”, “immunity”, “certificates”, “passports”, “digital”, “applications”, “apps”, “mandatory” and “compulsory”. We found 4 peer-reviewed publications: three population surveys on public acceptance of and ethical issues in digital contact tracing in France, Jordan, and Ireland, and one population survey on perceptions of immunity and vaccination certificates in Geneva, Switzerland. We found no studies that studied the relative acceptance of different types of control measures.
Added value There is a paucity of literature on public perception of the ethics of control measures that have been or may be implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we found differing levels of public support in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia for digital contact tracing, wearable quarantine monitoring devices, and mandatory testing and vaccination for travelers. Hong Kong respondents sharply differed from Singapore and Malaysia respondents on perceptions of risks and benefits, the extent of intrusion into individual freedom, and assurance of privacy and data protection related to use of digital contact tracing and monitoring devices. These differences are likely to be substantially influenced by socio-political climate and governmental trust. Although less than two-thirds of respondents in all territories expressed a willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19, we found high support for differential travel restrictions for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in all settings.
Implications of all the available evidence Our survey provides evidence of strong public support of vaccination requirements for travelers within an Asian context, and differential restrictions for vaccinated and non-vaccinated travelers. It highlights the importance of wider socio-political influences on public perception and ethical issues related to control measures and emphasizes the need to continually monitor public attitudes towards such measures to inform implementation and communication strategies.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Tam reports grants from Roche, outside the submitted work.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the World Health Organization (WHO) to support the work of the WHO Global Health Ethics & Governance Unit on Ethics & COVID-19.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee of the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore (SSHSPH-092); Universiti Malaya Research Ethics Committee (UM.TNC2/UMREC_1129); and the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong (UW-20-095).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All of the individual, de-identified participant data collected during the study as well as the study questionnaires will be available in our university's data warehouse or other public data repository beginning 9 months after article publication for an indefinite period.
