ReviewJournal of medical ethics2004
Evidence based medicine and justice: a framework for looking at the impact of EBM upon vulnerable or disadvantaged groups.
Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups.BMC medical research methodology · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- The HEALthy Brain and Child Development Study (HBCD) experience: Recruiting and retaining diverse families in a longitudinal, multi-method early childhood study.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2024Article
- Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) in Digestive Healthcare: Regulatory Challenges and Ethical Implications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Recruitment and Enrollment of Low-income, Minority Residents of Urban Public Housing into Research.Journal of community health · 2023Article
- Psychosocial Basis of Human Sufferings and Poverty in Patients with Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders.Medical research archives · 2023Article
- The Promise of Artificial Intelligence in Digestive Healthcare and the Bioethics Challenges It Presents.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Patient-centred clinical trial design.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2022Review
- Enrollment, retention, and strategies for including disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- The ethical, legal and social implications of using artificial intelligence systems in breast cancer care.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- Increasing participation in research with therapy dogs: A qualitative study at a large urban mental health and addiction hospital.PloS one · 2020Article
- Valuing Healthcare Improvement: Implicit Norms, Explicit Normativity, and Human Agency.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2018Article
- Promoting aging migrants' capabilities: A randomized controlled trial concerning activities of daily living and self-rated health.AIMS public health · 2018Article
- Knowledge and Perception about Clinical Research Shapes Behavior: Face to Face Survey in Korean General Public.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Article
- Rethinking the vulnerability of minority populations in research.American journal of public health · 2013Article
- Hemoglobin A1c as a diagnostic tool: public health implications from an actor-network perspective.American journal of public health · 2012Article
- Data collectors' field journals as tools for research.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2011Article
- Societal and ethical issues in human biomonitoring--a view from science studies.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2008Article
- Perceived social justice, long-term unemployment and health. A survey among marginalised groups in Austria.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2007Article
- Feminism and public health ethics.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article examines the implicit promises of fairness in evidence based medicine (EBM), namely to avoid discrimination through objective processes, and to distribute effective treatments fairly. The relationship between EBM and vulnerable groups (such as those disadvantaged by virtue of poverty, ethnicity, age, gender, mental health problems or similar) is examined. Several aspects of EBM are explored: the way evidence is created (commissioning and design of, and participation in research), and the way evidence is applied in clinical care and health policy. This analysis suggests that EBM turns our attention away from social and cultural factors that influence health and focuses on a narrow biomedical and individualistic model of health. Those with the greatest burden of ill health are left disenfranchised, as there is little research that is relevant to them, there is poor access to treatments, and attention is diverted away from activities that might have a much greater impact on their health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.