Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27801360›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2016

Key Ethical Issues Discussed at CDC-Sponsored International, Regional Meetings to Explore Cultural Perspectives and Contexts on Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response.

Aun Lor, James C Thomas, Drue H Barrett, Leonard W Ortmann, Dionisio J Herrera Guibert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Creating codes of ethics for public health professionals and institutions.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025
    Article
  3. Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Aun LorCenter for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
James C ThomasGilllings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Drue H BarrettOffice of Science Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Leonard W OrtmannOffice of Science Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dionisio J Herrera GuibertTraining Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network, Task Force for Global Health Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecognizing the importance of having a broad exploration of how cultural perspectives may shape thinking about ethical considerations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded four regional meetings in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Eastern Mediterranean to explore these perspectives relevant to pandemic influenza preparedness and response. The meetings were attended by 168 health professionals, scientists, academics, ethicists, religious leaders, and other community members representing 40 countries in these regions.

methodsWe reviewed the meeting reports, notes and stories and mapped outcomes to the key ethical challenges for pandemic influenza response described in the World Health Organization's (WHO's) guidance, Ethical Considerations in Developing a Public Health Response to Pandemic Influenza: transparency and public engagement, allocation of resources, social distancing, obligations to and of healthcare workers, and international collaboration.

resultsThe important role of transparency and public engagement were widely accepted among participants. However, there was general agreement that no "one size fits all" approach to allocating resources can address the variety of economic, cultural and other contextual factors that must be taken into account. The importance of social distancing as a tool to limit disease transmission was also recognized, but the difficulties associated with this measure were acknowledged. There was agreement that healthcare workers often have competing obligations and that government has a responsibility to assist healthcare workers in doing their job by providing appropriate training and equipment. Finally, there was agreement about the importance of international collaboration for combating global health threats.

conclusionAlthough some cultural differences in the values that frame pandemic preparedness and response efforts were observed, participants generally agreed on the key ethical principles discussed in the WHO's guidance. Most significantly the input gathered from these regional meetings pointed to the important role that procedural ethics can play in bringing people and countries together to respond to the shared health threat posed by a pandemic influenza despite the existence of cultural differences.

Indexed as

CultureDisaster PlanningResource AllocationAfricaAsiaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Congresses as TopicDelivery of Health CareDisease OutbreaksEthicsHealth PersonnelHumansInfluenza, HumanInternational CooperationLatin AmericaMiddle EastCultureEmergency ResponseGlobal HealthInfluenzaPandemic PreparednessPublic Health Ethics

Identifiers

PMID27801360
PMCPMC5088725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.