Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40803713›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2025

Effective altruism in global health: doing better, justly.

Karel-Bart Celie, Dominic Wilkinson, Ruben Ayala, Kokila Lakhoo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2025. 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

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

4 authors.

Karel-Bart CelieKeck School of Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA celie.md.mst@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9630-1988
Dominic WilkinsonUehiro Oxford Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ruben AyalaGlobal Bioethics Collaborative, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Kokila LakhooGlobal Bioethics Collaborative, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1840-708X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effective altruism (EA) movement has seen explosive growth within the last decade, resulting in the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars in funding towards altruistic causes. The movement aims to maximise good and has identified global health initiatives as especially promising. In this paper, we first present a brief overview of the philosophy behind EA and concede the importance of efficacy in the context of the scarcity of resources in global health. We then present three critiques that we believe are particularly salient in the context of global health. The 'philosophical critique' challenges EA's abstract and impartial vantage point for moral reasoning. The 'institutional critique' points to EA's penchant towards quantifiable impact, potentially at the expense of efforts that are less easily quantified but nonetheless critical to effecting sustainable change. Lastly, the 'epistemic critique' posits that EA may contribute to epistemic injustice by denying the communities that global health seeks to serve the space to shape the knowledge practices that they are impacted by. Thus, while EA's methodological rigour and its ability to spread awareness of the plight of billions is welcome, it is imperative to apply its philosophy to global health cautiously-ensuring that we not only do good better, but do better justly.

Indexed as

AltruismGlobal HealthHumansDelivery of Health CareGlobal HealthHealth policy

Identifiers

PMID40803713
PMCPMC12352269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.