Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40934066›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025

Policymakers' engagement with ethicists to improve public health in the United States.

Adam Seth Levine, Andrew G Shuman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 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

2 authors.

Adam Seth LevineSNF Agora Professor of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University, 3100 Wyman Park Drive, Baltimore, MD 21211, United States.
Andrew G ShumanCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM), University of Michigan Medical School, 1904 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To determine how policymakers interact with bioethicists, their interest in future engagement, and their motivation and hesitations to do so. Methods: Three nationwide surveys of United States policymakers ( Results: Only 12.1 % of elected policymakers (95 % CI: 9.0 %,16.3 %), 6.6 % of managers (95 % CI: 4.2 %,10.1 %), and 14.2 % of civil servants (95 % CI: 11.0 %,18.3 %) reported recent interaction with a bioethicist. Yet 40.1 % of elected policymakers (95 % CI: 34.8 %,45.6 %), 40.0 % of managers (95 % CI: 34.1 %,46.2 %), and 47.9 % of civil servants (95 % CI: 42.5 %,53.3 %) expressed an unmet desire for more direct engagement. Partisan differences were present, with Democrats in each sample expressing more unmet desire. Key hesitations to interacting with bioethicists were a perception they would push a political agenda and not share practical information. Conclusions: Many policymakers wish to seek counsel from those within the bioethics community as they work to promote and protect the health of their community, despite low levels of reported engagement. Amidst widespread calls for more ethically-informed public health policymaking, there is a key opportunity for bioethicists to influence and shape public policy at sub-national levels.

Indexed as

BioethicsPartisanshipPolicy engagementPolicymakingPublic health

Identifiers

PMID40934066
PMCPMC12418881

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.