Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30522485›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2018

Exploring the ethics of global health research priority-setting.

Bridget Pratt, Mark Sheehan, Nicola Barsdorf, Adnan A Hyder

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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Ethical Frameworks and Global Health: A Narrative Review of the "Leave No One Behind" Principle.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Review
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

4 authors.

Bridget PrattNossal Institute for Global Health and Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. bridget.pratt@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-4934-3560
Mark SheehanEthox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nicola BarsdorfHealth Research Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Adnan A HyderMilken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, USA.

Funding

Department of Health BRC-1215-20008Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 200125/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThus far, little work in bioethics has specifically focused on global health research priority-setting. Yet features of global health research priority-setting raise ethical considerations and concerns related to health justice. For example, such processes are often exclusively disease-driven, meaning they rely heavily on burden of disease considerations. They, therefore, tend to undervalue non-biomedical research topics, which have been identified as essential to helping reduce health disparities. In recognition of these ethical concerns and the limited scholarship and dialogue addressing them, we convened an international workshop in September 2015. The workshop aimed to initiate discussion on the appropriate relationship between global and national levels of health research priority-setting and to begin exploring what might be ethically required for priority-setting at each of those levels. MAIN TEXT: This paper comprises our reflections following the workshop. Its main objective is to launch a research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting. We identify three domains of global health research priority-setting-scope, underlying values and substantive requirements, and procedural considerations. For each domain, specific research questions are highlighted and why they need to be explored is explained. Some preliminary thoughts and normative arguments as to how the research questions might be answered are also offered. For example, we provide initial ideas about the appropriate relationship between different priority-setting levels and what values and substantive considerations should guide or underpin global health research priority-setting as a matter of justice.

conclusionWe anticipate that framing a new research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting will spur ethicists, researchers, and policymakers to refocus their efforts on developing more rigorous and ethically sound approaches to priority-setting.

Indexed as

ResearchBiomedical ResearchEthics, ResearchGlobal HealthHumansSocial JusticeEthicsGlobal health researchJusticePriority-setting

Identifiers

PMID30522485
PMCPMC6282311

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.