Browsing by Author "Parray, Ateeb Ahmad"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

ChatGPT and Global Public Health: Applications, Challenges, Ethical Considerations and Mitigation Strategies
(Elsevier, 2023) Parray, Ateeb Ahmad; Inam, Zuhrat Mahfuza; Ramonfaur, Diego; Haider, Shams Shabab; Mistry, Sabuj Kanti; Pandya, Apurva Kumar
The advancement of deep learning and artificial intelligence has resulted in the development of state-of-the-art language models, such as ChatGPT. This technology can analyze large amounts of data, identify patterns, and assist in the analysis and understanding of risk factors for diseases. Despite its potential, the applications, challenges, and ethical considerations have not been yet fully explored in global health research. This paper examines the applications of ChatGPT in global health research, assesses the challenges in its use, and proposes mitigation strategies. Additionally, it describes the ethical considerations around the use of ChatGPT in global health research and suggests potential avenues for addressing these issues. This paper summarizes that it is crucial to understand the capabilities and limitations of this technology in order to fully realize its potential and ensure its responsible integration into global health research.
Combating the COVID-19 infodemic: a three-level approach for low and middle-income countries
(BMJ Journals, 1/29/2021) Dash, Sambit; Parray, Ateeb Ahmad; De Freitas, Loren; Mithu, Md Imran Hossain; Rahman, Md Mustafizur; Ramasamy, Aarthy; Pandya, Apurva Kumar
The COVID-19 crisis has contributed to the development of an ‘infodemic’ that hinders an adequate public health approach to managing the crisis. The WHO defines an infodemic as an ‘overabundance of information—some accurate and some not—that occurs during an epidemic’.1 Fake news, propaganda and conspiracy theories, ubiquitous in the era of social media, have spread since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reports suggest that a rumour is three times more likely to be spread in social media than accurate information.2 This is of great concern as it often leads to reduced trust in health institutions and services and impedes the evidence-informed approach in managing the pandemic. The infodemic may also promote hate speech and associated stigmatisation which may contribute to exclusions of vulnerable sections of society. The adverse effects of the infodemic may be exacerbated in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where low health literacy levels, poor health infrastructure and poor resource settings exist. One example is the spread of misinformation that concentrated alcohol can kill the novel coronavirus. This led to methanol poisoning that contributed to the deaths of more than 700 people in Iran and resulted in blindness in 60 people in other LMICs.3 Misperceptions about COVID-19 also entail less adherence with proven precautionary behaviours such as social distancing interventions.4 Broad categories of misinformation related to COVID-19 include those about the disease itself, conspiracy theories, scapegoating and false cures. A concerted, tailor-made, evidence-informed effort from a transdisciplinary perspective is required to address the impact of the infodemic in LMICs. In this article, we suggest measures and approaches that LMICs can undertake in order to combat the COVID-19 infodemic and future infodemics.
COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Is Extremely Low Among Older Population in Bangladesh
(Daffodil International University, 2022-01-14) Mistrya, Sabuj Kanti; Alia, ARM Mehrab; Yadavb, Uday Narayan; Hudag, Md. Nazmul; Parray, Ateeb Ahmad; Mahumudi, Rashidul Alam; Mitraj, Dipak
This cross-sectional study was conducted in September 2021 among 1,045 Bangladeshi older adults aged 60 years or above to explore the COVID-19 vaccination coverage and its associated factors. We used a semi-structured questionnaire to collect data on participants' sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, and COVID-19 related information (selected based on an extensive literature review). A multinomial logistic regression model was used to identify the factors independently associated with vaccine receipt. Nearly, two-thirds of the participants (64.5%) were unvaccinated and 12.5% received a single dose. Among the unvaccinated, approximately 94% reported that there was a problem in accessing the vaccine. We found that participants with formal schooling had 42% lower risk of being unvaccinated (RRR (Relative Risk Ratio) = 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.80) or 39% lower risk of receiving a single dose (RRR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.96) than the participants having no formal schooling. The middle family monthly income groups had 65% higher risk (RRR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.32) and rural participants had 84% higher risk (RRR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.26-2.70) of not receiving vaccines compared to their counterparts. Also, the participants with non-communicable chronic conditions had a significantly lower risk of being unvaccinated (RRR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.35-0.68) or receiving a single dose (RRR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.31-0.77) compared to their counterparts. This finding may help strengthen the existing efforts to maximize vaccine coverage among older populations in Bangladesh and reach herd immunity to break the transmission chain and gain greater overall population protection more rapidly.
Reclaiming comprehensive public health
(BMJ Journals, 9/25/2020) Loewenson, Rene; Accoe, Kirsten; Bajpai, Nitin; Buse, Kent; Deivanayagam, Thilagawathi Abi; London, Leslie; Méndez, Claudio A; Mirzoev, Tolib; Nelson, Erica; Parray, Ateeb Ahmad; Probandari, Ari; Sarriot, Eric; Tetui, Moses; van Rensburg, André Janse
Over the past 6 months, we have witnessed diversity in the spread and severity of the COVID-19 and in the nature and timing of responses to it in different countries and contexts.1 Acute emergencies often mobilise a short spurt of attention and resources. COVID-19 is, however, a protracted pandemic that spreads through and exacerbates socioeconomic inequalities and stresses health and democratic systems in a way that calls for sustained responses from local to global levels. The ways that different governments have responded to COVID-19 highlight the long-standing tensions between different frameworks and approaches to public health. Broadly characterised, one approach views people as rights holders who should actively be engaged in proactive interventions that address the social determinants of health, in a way that is respectful of rights and of collective human security. In contrast, the second approach sees people as the objects of reactive technical, biomedical ‘command-and-control’ interventions, with biosecurity measures to protect populations against harmful pathogens rapidly implemented alongside authoritarian and militarised approaches when epidemics are seen to threaten socioeconomic and political interests and security. Both approaches integrate knowledge and technology, but do so in different ways and to different ends. While these two frameworks have coexisted, contested and been applied, sometimes together, for over two centuries, COVID-19 has exacerbated the tension between them. This has longer term implications for how public health is understood and health challenges effectively addressed. In this piece, we highlight deficiencies and harms of a dominant biosecurity, authoritarian framing of public health. We argue for a comprehensive, participatory, inclusive public health approach that integrates rights, social dimensions and diverse sources of knowledge, evidence and innovation and that maintains equity as a critical goal. The precautionary principle and limitations of individual rights in the interests of public health and safety are well-established norms that go beyond public health and are included in constitutions and laws. When the risk is high and effective population measures exist, such as vaccination or water treatment, decisions may be made centrally to ensure the most widespread protection of the population, especially when no equally effective alternatives can achieve the same population benefits. Central-level measures may be implemented to invest in technologies, guide and support local capacities or to ensure universal coverage. An acute emergency or rapidly unfolding pandemic can provoke demand for centrally driven prompt and wide-reaching action. However, the COVID-19 pandemic presents a complex case, where the intended and unintended impacts of measures implemented at different levels are still emerging. This protracted pandemic requires cooperation and effective communication between national and local levels, including communities, implemented in a way that safeguards respect for people’s dignity, supports local-level capacities and engages with people’s languages, cultures, knowledge and realities.1 2 Decisions made in public health require evidence from a range of disciplines and sciences, as well as from experiences and perspectives from all levels, with communication on how trade-offs were decided. Effective responses and simplified guidance cannot be imported from one setting to another without adapting them to diverse contexts in ways that are participatory, transparent and generate trust in authorities from implementers and communities.3 While the public health response is not independent of the broader sociopolitical context, its framing and implementation can, however, redress inequities and reinforce social empowerment, cohesion, solidarity and human security.3 As consistently articulated by the United Nations (UN) and its agencies,1 collectively, we are only as free of risk as the most vulnerable in society. If public health practice reflects and does not confront underlying power imbalances and inequalities that generate risk and vulnerability, we will all be insecure. As a global pandemic, COVID-19 thus also requires cooperation, communication and solidarity across countries and international organisations as envisaged in the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), the Sustainable Development Goals and the 1978 and 2018 Declarations on Primary Health Care.4 How will we judge the public health response to COVID-19? Was it rights driven, participatory, equitable, compassionate and based on solidarity? Were diverse forms of evidence and experience encouraged, made available and transparently considered? Was the political, values-based ethical nature of decisions and interventions recognised? Were open dialogue, self-reflection, information sharing and active citizenship encouraged?
The burden of non-disabled frailty and its associated factors among older adults in Bangladesh
(Daffodil International University, 2023) Mistry, Sabuj Kanti; Ali, A R M Mehrab; Yadav, Uday Narayan; Ghimire, Saruna; Anwar, Afsana; Huda, Md Nazmul; Khanam, Fouzia; Mahumud, Rashidul Alam; Parray, Ateeb Ahmad; Bhattacharjee, Shovon; Lim, David; Harris, Mark Fort
Objective The present study aims to measure the prevalence of non-disabled frailty and its associated factors among Bangladeshi older adults. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted during September and October 2021 among 1,045 Bangladeshi older adults (≥60 years). Telephone interviews, using a semi-structured questionnaire, were undertaken to collect data on participants’ characteristics and level of frailty. The non-disabled frailty was measured using the ‘Frail Non-Disabled (FiND)’ questionnaire. A multinomial logistic regression model assessed the factors associated with frailty among the participants. Results Around a quarter of the participants (24.8%) were frail. The multinomial regression analysis showed that older participants aged ≥80 years (RRR = 3.23, 95% CI: 1.41–7.37) were more likely to be frail compared to participants aged 60–69 years. Likewise, the participants living in a large family with ≥4 members (RRR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.01–1.92) were more likely to be frail compared to those living in smaller families. Also, participants having memory or concentration problems (RRR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.12–2.17) were more likely to be frail compared to those who were not suffering from these problems. Moreover, participants whose family members were non-responsive to their day-to-day assistance (RRR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.06–2.03) were more likely to be frail compared to those whose family members were responsive. Furthermore, participants who were feeling lonely (RRR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.07–1.98) were more likely to be frail than their counterparts who were not feeling lonely. Conclusions The findings of the present study suggest developing tailored interventions to address the burden of frailty among the older populations in Bangladesh. In particular, providing long-term care and health promotion activities can be of value in preventing frailty and reducing adverse health outcomes among this vulnerable population group.