Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38767961›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2024

Beyond Trade-Offs: Autonomy, Effectiveness, Fairness, and Normativity in Risk and Crisis Communication.

Federico Germani, Giovanni Spitale, Nikola Biller-Andorno

Abstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Federico GermaniInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine (IBME), University of Zurich.ORCID 0000-0002-5604-0437
Giovanni SpitaleInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine (IBME), University of Zurich.ORCID 0000-0002-6812-0979
Nikola Biller-AndornoInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine (IBME), University of Zurich.ORCID 0000-0001-7661-1324

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper addresses the critiques based on trade-offs and normativity presented in response to our target article proposing the Public Health Emergency Risk and Crisis Communication (PHERCC) framework. These critiques highlight the ethical dilemmas in crisis communication, particularly the balance between promoting public autonomy through transparent information and the potential stigmatization of specific population groups, as illustrated by the discussion of the mpox outbreak among men who have sex with men. This critique underscores the inherent tension between communication effectiveness and autonomy versus fairness and equity. In response, our paper reiterates the adaptability of the PHERCC framework, emphasizing its capacity to tailor messages to diverse audiences, thereby reducing potential stigmatization and misinformation. Through community engagement and feedback integration, the PHERCC framework aims to optimize the effectiveness of communication strategies while addressing ethical concerns. Furthermore, by involving affected communities in the communication strategy from the onset, the framework seeks to minimize ethical trade-offs and enhance the acceptance and effectiveness of public health messages.

Indexed as

CommunicationPersonal AutonomyPublic HealthHumansMaleMpox, MonkeypoxSocial Justicecitizen engagementdemocratic technologiesPublic health ethicsrisk and crisis communication

Identifiers

PMID38767961
PMCPMC11168572

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.