ArticlePublic health ethics2025
The Capability Approach and Upstream Causes-A Discussion of Johnson's Ethical Evaluation Framework for Coercive Antimicrobial Stewardship Policies.
Article in Public health ethics, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major global health threat. One of the ways to address this issue is through coercive enforcement of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) policies. The use of such (state) coercion requires ethical justification. Therefore, Dr. Tess Johnson has recently developed a framework to evaluate the possible ethical justifications for these coercive AMS policies. In this discussion article, we aim to contribute to further developing Johnson's ethical evaluation framework by providing two additional arguments. First, we remark how the high burden of ethical justification is premised on the assumption that coercion restricts freedom. We argue that this only applies to narrow conceptions of freedom, while not necessarily to broader conceptions, such as the capability approach. Second, we advocate for attentiveness to upstream causes of AMR. We argue that ethically justified coercive AMS policy is conditional upon giving sufficient consideration to solving these upstream causes.
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.