Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38624276›Full record

ArticleThe review of international organizations2017

Domestic politics and the WHO's International Health Regulations: Explaining the use of trade and travel barriers during disease outbreaks.

Catherine Z Worsnop

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The review of international organizations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. The Evolving Policy Debate on Border Closure in Korea.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Catherine Z WorsnopHealth Sciences Department, Worcester State University, Worcester, MA USA.
Worcester State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO), acting under the authority of the International Health Regulations (IHR), recommended against the imposition of trade or travel restrictions because, according to WHO, these barriers would not prevent disease spread. Why did 47 states impose barriers anyway? This article argues that states use barriers as political cover to prevent a loss of domestic political support. This logic suggests that governments anticipating high domestic political benefits for imposing barriers during an outbreak will be likely to do so. Logistic regression and duration analysis of an original dataset coding state behavior during H1N1 provide support for this argument: democracies with weak health infrastructure-those that stand to gain the most from imposing barriers during an outbreak because they are particularly vulnerable to a negative public reaction-are more likely than others to impose barriers and to do so quickly.

Indexed as

ComplianceDomestic politicsGlobal healthInternational organizationsWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID38624276
PMCPMC7149042
OpenAlexW2556834260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.