ArticleBMJ public health2026
Coercion in public health: a scoping review of definitions.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. 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
Introduction: It is common for certain public health measures to be characterised as 'coercive', which often carries negative moral connotations that can fuel opposition to their use. Yet, coercion admits of myriad definitions and justifications. This lack of conceptual clarity not only risks the inconsistent implementation and evaluation of policy but can also undermine public trust and weaken the legitimacy of public health governance. Methods: A scoping review of the public health literature was conducted to understand (1) how coercion is defined in the public health literature and (2) which justificatory conditions, if any, are identified to support the use of coercion for public health purposes. The search strategy covered five databases. Results were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guideline. Results: 56 publications were included. Definitions appeared most within the contexts of infectious disease (n=30) and public health ethics (n=34). While definitions lacked consistency and often conceptual precision, several publications (n=16) drew on established philosophical accounts of coercion (eg, Wertheimer, Nozick, Feinberg). We identified five elements central to how coercion is commonly understood and invoked in public health: limiting alternative options; influencing voluntariness; inducing fear of consequences; using state powers to enforce a rule; leaving someone worse off if they do not comply. Conclusion: This review reveals an important gap in the public health literature. Despite the ubiquity of the term 'coercion' in public health, it remains poorly and inconsistently defined. This ambiguity risks the imprecise and at times inappropriate categorisation and evaluation of public health interventions as coercive, potentially compromising both policy effectiveness and public co-operation. Future research could aim to synthesise a definition of coercion agreeable to most public health stakeholders.
Indexed as
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.