Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40087432›Full record

ReviewBritish dental journal2025

The ethics of community water fluoridation: Part 1 - an overview of public health ethics.

Bhavini Patel, Alison Patrick, Thomas Anthony Dyer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British dental journal, 2025. 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. Review
  3. Review
  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

3 authors.

Bhavini PatelDental Practitioner and Alumnus, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, 19 Claremont Crescent, Sheffield, S10 2TA, UK.
Alison PatrickSenior University Teacher in Law and Ethics, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, 19 Claremont Crescent, Sheffield, S10 2TA, UK.
Thomas Anthony DyerSenior Clinical Teacher, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, 19 Claremont Crescent, Sheffield, S10 2TA, UK. t.dyer@sheffield.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim To provide an overview of public health ethics, how it differs from medical ethics, and why this is important when considering the justification of public health interventions, such as community water fluoridation.Method Narrative review of the literature.Results Like medical ethics, public health ethics is underpinned by moral-based theories: consequentialism and non-consequentialism. Utilitarianism is an example of the former and sees moral action as that which produces the overall greatest benefit or wellbeing in society. In contrast, non-consequentialist theories focus on whether an action is right or wrong regardless of consequences. One such approach is principlism, where respect for autonomy, beneficence (benefit), non-maleficence (avoidance of harm), and justice are considered. However, as most public health interventions restrict autonomy to some extent, these require modification to balance this with any collective benefit. Similarly, political theory influences public health ethical thinking: liberalism's focus on autonomy and avoidance of infringement of freedoms challenges many public health interventions. Given these complexities, frameworks exist to help guide ethical deliberation in public health.Conclusion Various principles and ethical frameworks have been proposed for public health interventions. They have more utility when considering the ethics of interventions, such as community water fluoridation, than those for medical interventions.

Indexed as

FluoridationPublic HealthEthical TheoryHumans

Identifiers

PMID40087432
PMCPMC11908967

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.