↓ Skip to main content

The evolution of public health ethics frameworks: systematic review of moral values and norms in public health policy

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
Title
The evolution of public health ethics frameworks: systematic review of moral values and norms in public health policy
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11019-017-9813-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahmoud Abbasi, Reza Majdzadeh, Alireza Zali, Abbas Karimi, Forouzan Akrami

Abstract

Given the evolution of the public health (PH) and the changes from the phenomenon of globalization, this area has encountered new ethical challenges. In order to find a coherent approach to address ethical issues in PH policy, this study aimed to identify the evolution of public health ethics (PHE) frameworks and the main moral values and norms in PH practice and policy. According to the research questions, a systematic search of the literature, in English, with no time limit was performed using the main keywords in databases Web of Science (ISI) and PubMed. Finally, the full text of 56 papers was analyzed. Most of the frameworks have common underpinning assumptions and beliefs, and the need to balance PH moral obligation to prevent harm and health promotion with respect for individual autonomy has been specified. As such, a clear shift from liberal values in biomedical ethics is seen toward the community's collective values in PHE. The main moral norms in PH practice and policy included protecting the population against harm and improving PH benefits, utility and evidenced-based effectiveness, distributive justice and fairness, respect for all, privacy and confidentiality, solidarity, social responsibility, community empowerment and participation, transparency, accountability and trust. Systematic review of PHE frameworks indicates utilization of the aforementioned moral norms through an practical framework as an ethical guide for action in the PH policy. The validity of this process requires a systematic approach including procedural conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 203 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Researcher 15 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 4%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 62 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 12%
Social Sciences 20 10%
Psychology 5 2%
Philosophy 4 2%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 78 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,666,748
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#130
of 604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,885
of 332,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.