ArticlePublic health2018
An ethical framework for evaluation of public health plans: a systematic process for legitimate and fair decision-making.
Article in Public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Frameworks for developing and evaluating public health interventions in primary prevention and health promotion: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Medical-Bioethical Mediation as a Potential Governance Innovation for Sustainable, Efficient, and Resilient Healthcare Systems.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and health surveillance: synergies and challenges in a changing world.Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Ethical Considerations from the Viewpoint of Headquarters Experts on HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Strategic Program.International journal of preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Requirement of Considering the Ethical Issues in Elderly Health Care Policy.International journal of preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Adoption of Iran's code of ethics for blood donation and transfusion as a public health policy.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGiven the increasing threats of communicable and non-communicable diseases, it is necessary for policy-makers and public health (PH) professionals to address ethical issues in health policies and plans. This study aimed to develop a practical framework for the ethical evaluation of PH programs. STUDY
designA multidisciplinary team developed an ethical framework to evaluate PH plans from 2015 to 2017.
methodsIn this study, the multi-method approach was used. First, a list of moral norms in PH policy and practice was drafted and completed in two interactive sessions. Then, the Delphi method was used for consensus about the structural components to be adopted in the framework. After developing the framework, its efficiency was assessed by evaluating Iran's Fourth Strategic Plan for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control.
resultsThe framework was developed in the following three sections: (i) determination of the general moral norms in PH practice and policy; (ii) five steps of evaluation; and (iii) a procedural evaluation step to ensure fair decision-making. The ratio of the ethical points of the PH plan increased by 46% after implementation of the framework, and the frequency of ethical points increased significantly after applying the framework (P = 0.001).
conclusionThe application of the framework for the ethical evaluation of various PH programs ensures a comprehensive and scientific-deliberative decision-making process, while also contributing to the development of the framework.
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.