Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33033624›Full record

ArticleGlobal challenges (Hoboken, NJ)2020

Dimensions of Health Security-A Conceptual Analysis.

Preslava Stoeva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Dimensions of Health Security-A Conceptual Analysis.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2020
    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

1 author.

Preslava StoevaDepartment of Global Health & Development London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine 15-17 Tavistock Place London WC1H 9SH UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8626-4079

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discussions of the politics and practicalities of confronting health security challenges-from infectious disease outbreaks to antimicrobial resistance and the silent epidemic of noncommunicable diseases-hinge on the conceptualization of health security. There is no consensus among analysts about the specific parameters of health security. This inhibits comparative evaluation and critique, and affects the consistency of advice for policymakers. This article aims to contribute to debates about the meaning and scope of health security by applying Baldwin's (1997) framework for conceptualizing security with a view to propose an alternative framing. Asking Baldwin's concept-defining questions of the health security literature highlights how implicit and explicit assumptions currently place health security squarely within a narrow traditionalist analytical framework. Such framing of health security is inaccurate and constraining, as demonstrated by practice and empirical observations. Alternative approaches to security propose that security politics can also be multiactor, cooperative, and ethical, while being conscious of postcolonial and feminist critique in search of sustainable solutions to existential threats to individuals and communities. A broader conceptualization of health security can transform the politics of health security, improving health outcomes beyond acute crises and contribute to broader security studies' debates.

Indexed as

conceptual frameworkcooperative securityhealth securitysecurity for individuals

Identifiers

PMID33033624
PMCPMC7533848

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.