ArticleGlobal policy2024
In the Line of Duty: Militarizing African Epidemics.
Article in Global policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The deployment of soldiers for epidemic control in Africa has become more acceptable, even when human rights violations occur. This article outlines how this situation has arisen, foregrounding overlapping processes since the 1990s and the implications of Security Council Resolution 2177. It then explores effects with reference to Sierra Leone and Uganda. Drawing on long term fieldwork, it discusses militarised epidemic control programmes during Ebola and COVID-19 outbreaks. It points out similarities in the responses to epidemics in these two countries, including the violent enforcement of regulations, but also striking differences. In Sierra Leone, a democratic transition of governmental power occurred, whereas militarised epidemic control in Uganda helped entrench autocratic public authority. To the extent that there is data available, disease control outcomes in the two countries were not widely divergent, yet the Ugandan response has been valorised. This highlights a drift towards less accountable forms of governance, justified by purported public health objectives.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.