Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35932244›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2022

Disease surveillance infrastructure and the economisation of public health.

Claire Laurier Decoteau, Cal Lee Garrett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Claire Laurier DecoteauDepartment of Sociology, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5644-0361
Cal Lee GarrettDepartment of Sociology, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0063-4807

Funding

Strengthening Stakeholder Engagement in Human Research Protections.UL1TR002003 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI KARNIK, NIRANJAN SUBHASH, MERMELSTEIN, ROBIN J. · 2016 to 2024
$33.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The city government of Chicago adopted a 'racial equity' approach to tackle racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. Drawing on experience addressing core vulnerabilities associated with HIV risk, Chicago public health experts who designed COVID-19 mitigation initiatives recognised that the same social determinants of health drive racial disparities for both HIV and COVID-19. Yet, when building an infrastructure to respond to COVID-19, disease surveillance and data collection became the priority for investment ahead of other forms of public health work or the provision of social services. The building of a disease surveillance infrastructure that responded to and supplied data took precedence over addressing social determinants of poor health. Community-based organisations that might have otherwise organised for social service provision were incorporated into this infrastructure. Further, public health officials often failed to heed the lessons learned from their experience with HIV vulnerability. Based on qualitative analysis of 56 interviews with public health experts and policymakers in Chicago, we argue that the prioritisation of disease surveillance, coupled with a scarcity model of public health provision, undermined the city's attempt to redress racial inequities in outcomes. We argue that the economisation of pandemic response exacerbates health disparities, even when racial equity frameworks are adopted.

Indexed as

COVID-19HIV InfectionsHumansPandemicsPublic HealthCOVID-19economisationepidemiologyhealth disparitiesHIV/AIDSlay expertisepublic health

Identifiers

PMID35932244
PMCPMC9542865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.