Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40477201›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Friedens- und Konfliktforschung2020

The threat of thinking in threats: reframing global health during and after COVID-19.

Elena Sondermann, Cornelia Ulbert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The Universal Triangle to Ensure Health Security.International journal of public health · 2022
    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.

Elena SondermannInstitut für Entwicklung und Frieden (INEF), Universität Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstr. 53, Duisburg, 47057 Germany.
Cornelia UlbertInstitut für Entwicklung und Frieden (INEF), Universität Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstr. 53, Duisburg, 47057 Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Narratives and metaphors shape how actors perceive the world around them and how policymakers frame the range of policy choices they think of as feasible. The metaphor of war and the narrative of how to tackle the unprecedented threat of COVID-19 are effective mechanisms to convey urgency. However, they also bear serious implications: Thinking in terms of health threats works with a logic of exceptionalism, which supports images of "us" vs. an "enemy" thereby shortening complex lines of causality and responsibility and privileging national answers. It fails to provide for a normative framework for drafting long-term systemic approaches. In this contribution, we critically engage with existing narratives of global health security and show how the logic of exceptionalism is limiting the current responses to the pandemic. We conceptualize an alternative narrative that is based on the logic of solidarity and argue that within this alternative framing a more sustainable and ultimately more just way of coping with infectious diseases will be possible.

Indexed as

Global health securityGlobal health solidarityInfectious diseasesLogic of exceptionalismVulnerabilities

Identifiers

PMID40477201
PMCPMC7650575

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.