Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41451117›Full record

ArticlePublic health ethics2026

Living Relational Ethics: A Case Study of a COVID-19 Asymptomatic Testing Programme in Higher Education.

Meredith McLaughlin, Caitríona Cox, Akbar Ansari, Jan van der Scheer, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health ethics, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Meredith McLaughlinStrangeways Research Laboratory, THIS Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN UK; Homerton College, University of Cambridge, Hills Rd, Cambridge CB2 8PH, UK.
Caitríona CoxStrangeways Research Laboratory, THIS Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
Akbar AnsariStrangeways Research Laboratory, THIS Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
Jan van der ScheerStrangeways Research Laboratory, THIS Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
Mary Dixon-WoodsStrangeways Research Laboratory, THIS Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Relational ethics gained increased attention as a guiding approach for public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Highlighting the social features of viral transmission, such as shared risk, relational ethics emphasizes the importance of collective responses rooted in values of community solidarity, mutual obligation and equity. However, many discussions of relational ethics have remained largely normative rather than empirical in character. In this paper, we report a study of relational ethics in the context of a COVID-19 asymptomatic testing programme implemented at a UK university during the pandemic. Exploring how staff and students considered the exceptional ethical demands and dilemmas of the pandemic, we show that respondents discussed participation in the asymptomatic testing programme in relational terms. In particular, they emphasised the mutual dependencies of communal living, the risks of community transmission, expectations for institutional care and distributed responsibility to care for those most vulnerable to severe disease. Our empirical findings advance normative discussions of relational ethics by demonstrating the relevance of institutional context and social change, offering insights for future public health interventions premised on relational values.

Identifiers

PMID41451117
PMCPMC12729913

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.