Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29499693›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2018

Screening for infectious diseases of asylum seekers upon arrival: the necessity of the moral principle of reciprocity.

Dorien T Beeres, Darren Cornish, Machiel Vonk, Sofanne J Ravensbergen, Els L M Maeckelberghe, Pieter Boele Van Hensbroek, Ymkje Stienstra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Dorien T BeeresInfectious Disease Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. d.t.beeres@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-6827-7282
Darren CornishBabylon Primary Health Care Services, Elst, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Machiel VonkDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Regional Public Health Service Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sofanne J RavensbergenInfectious Disease Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Els L M MaeckelbergheInstitute for Medical Education, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Pieter Boele Van HensbroekFaculty of Philosophy, Department of Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ymkje StienstraInfectious Disease Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith a large number of forcibly displaced people seeking safety, the EU is facing a challenge in maintaining solidarity. Europe has seen millions of asylum seekers crossing European borders, the largest number of asylum seekers since the second world war. Endemic diseases and often failing health systems in their countries of origin, and arduous conditions during transit, raise questions around how to meet the health needs of this vulnerable population on arrival in terms of screening, vaccination, and access to timely and appropriate statutory health services. This paper explores the potential role of the principle of reciprocity, defined as the disposition 'to return good in proportion to the good we receive, and to make reparations for the harm we have done', as a mid-level principle in infectious disease screening policies. MAIN TEXT: More than half of the European countries implemented screening programmes for newly arrived asylum seekers. Screening may serve to avoid potential infectious disease risks in the receiving countries as well as help identify health needs of asylum seekers. But screening may infringe upon basic rights of those screened, thus creating an ethical dilemma. The use of the principle of reciprocity can contribute to the identification of potential improvements for current screening programmes and emphasizes the importance of certain rights into guidelines for screening. It may create a two way moral obligation, upon asylum seekers to actively participate in the programme, and upon authorities to reciprocate the asylum seekers' participation and the benefits for the control of public health.

conclusionThe authors argue that the reciprocity principle leads to a stronger ethical justification of screening programmes and help achieve a balance between justifiable rights claims of the host population and the asylum seekers. The principle deserves a further and more thorough exploration of its potential use in the field of screening, migration and infectious diseases.

Indexed as

Emigrants and ImmigrantsInfectionsRefugeesCommunicable Disease ControlDelivery of Health CareEuropeEuropean UnionHealth Services AccessibilityHuman RightsHumansMass ScreeningMoral ObligationsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrinciple-Based EthicsPublic HealthVaccinationAsylum seekerInfectious diseasesMigrationReciprocityScreening

Identifiers

PMID29499693
PMCPMC5834863

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.