ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2020
Applying a Precautionary Approach to Mobile Contact Tracing for COVID-19: The Value of Reversibility.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short- and Long-Term Predicted and Witnessed Consequences of Digital Surveillance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- The ethical use of high-performance computing and artificial intelligence: fighting COVID-19 at Barcelona Supercomputing Center.AI and ethics · 2022Article
- How is "solidarity" understood in discussions about contact tracing apps? An overview.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Considerations for the Design and Implementation of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Digital contact tracing and exposure notification: ethical guidance for trustworthy pandemic management.Ethics and information technology · 2021Article
- Use of digital technologies for public health surveillance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic presents unprecedented challenges to public health decision-making. Specifically, the lack of evidence and the urgency with which a response is called for, raise the ethical challenge of assessing how much (and what kind of) evidence is required for the justification of interventions in response to the various threats we face. Here we discuss the intervention of introducing technology that aims to trace and alert contacts of infected persons-contact tracing (CT) technology. Determining whether such an intervention is proportional is complicated by complex trade-offs and feedback loops. We suggest that the resulting uncertainties necessitate a precautionary approach. On the one hand, precautionary reasons support CT technology as a means to contribute to the prevention of harms caused by alternative interventions, or COVID-19 itself. On the other hand, however, both the extent to which such technology itself present risks of serious harm, as well as its effectiveness, remain unclear. We therefore argue that a precautionary approach should put reversibility of CT technology at the forefront. We outline several practical implications.
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.