ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Ethical considerations of wastewater-based disease surveillance-a qualitative interview study.
Article in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Public health implementation of wastewater-based disease surveillance (WBDS) increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. WBDS raises unique ethical considerations because of its community-scale method of disease surveillance. However, the perspectives of community members regarding the ethics of WBDS are absent from the literature. Methods: We explored ethical considerations of WBDS by interviewing community members and professionals across the United States using vignettes and a semi-structured interview process. Vignettes highlighted ethical opportunities and concerns noted in the literature, and interview questions solicited information relevant to Kass's Public Health Ethics Framework. Professional interviewees were identified from their contributions to the field of WBDS, and community interviewees were recruited through a national survey panel firm. We recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed interview data using a blended inductive and deductive approach. Results: We interviewed 8 community members and 13 professionals from February to November of 2023. Interviewees broadly supported WBDS and collectively identified a variety of conditions needed for the ethically acceptable conduct of WBDS, such as transparency, effective communication, data privacy, legitimate purpose, responsible data use, public oversight, equity, and community engagement. Ethical concerns and suggested protective measures were similar between the two interviewee groups with few notable differences. Discussion: This exploratory study found interviewees were receptive to WBDS when accompanied by transparency, safeguards against data misuse, and clear public health purpose.
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.