ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2017
Ethical Frameworks in Public Health Decision-Making: Defending a Value-Based and Pluralist Approach.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- The 3D Value Framework for Sustainable Access to Effective Antibiotics.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Decision-Making in Public Health Crises: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography.Public health challenges · 2026Review
- Reelin' In The Years: Age and Selective Restriction of Liberty in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- An ethical analysis of policy dialogues.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Tips for Managing Ethical Challenges in Advance Care Planning: A Qualitative Analysis of Japanese Practical Textbooks for Clinicians.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Adopting an ethical approach to migration health policy, practice and research.BMJ global health · 2021Review
- Article
- Priority allocation of pandemic influenza vaccines in Australia - Recommendations of 3 community juries.Vaccine · 2021Article
- Screening for multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: what is effective and justifiable?Monash bioethics review · 2020Article
- Triage of critical care resources in COVID-19: a stronger role for justice.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- [Covid-19: An ad hoc public health ethics consultation].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2020Article
- Ethics, health policy-making and the economic crisis: a qualitative interview study with European policy-makers.International journal for equity in health · 2019Article
- An Ethics Framework for Big Data in Health and Research.Asian bioethics review · 2019Article
- Research and Global Health Emergencies: On the Essential Role of Best Practice.Public health ethics · 2018Article
- Perspective: Consideration of Values When Setting Priorities in Nutrition Research: Guidance for Transparency.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2018Article
- Ethical issues in the development and implementation of nutrition-related public health policies and interventions: A scoping review.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of ethical frameworks have been proposed to support decision-making in public health and the evaluation of public health policy and practice. This is encouraging, since ethical considerations are of paramount importance in health policy. However, these frameworks have various deficiencies, in part because they incorporate substantial ethical positions. In this article, we discuss and criticise a framework developed by James Childress and Ruth Bernheim, which we consider to be the state of the art in the field. Their framework distinguishes aims, such as the promotion of public health, from constraints on the pursuit of those aims, such as the requirement to avoid limitations to liberty, or the requirement to be impartial. We show how this structure creates both theoretical and practical problems. We then go on to present and defend a more practical framework, one that is neutral in avoiding precommitment to particular values and how they ought to be weighted. We believe ethics is at the very heart of such weightings and our framework is developed to reflect this belief. It is therefore both pluralist and value-based. We compare our new framework to Childress and Bernheim's and outline its advantages. It is justified by its impetus to consider a wide range of alternatives and its tendency to direct decisions towards the best alternatives, as well as by the information provided by the ranking of alternatives and transparent explication of the judgements that motivate this ranking. The new framework presented should be useful to decision-makers in public health, as well as being a means to stimulate further reflection on the role of ethics in public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26170178What 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.