↓ Skip to main content

Ethics for pandemics beyond influenza: Ebola, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and anticipating future ethical challenges in pandemic preparedness and response

Overview of attention for article published in Monash Bioethics Review, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 144)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Ethics for pandemics beyond influenza: Ebola, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and anticipating future ethical challenges in pandemic preparedness and response
Published in
Monash Bioethics Review, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40592-015-0038-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maxwell J. Smith, Diego S. Silva

Abstract

The unprecedented outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa has raised several novel ethical issues for global outbreak preparedness. It has also illustrated that familiar ethical issues in infectious disease management endure despite considerable efforts to understand and mitigate such issues in the wake of past outbreaks. To improve future global outbreak preparedness and response, we must examine these shortcomings and reflect upon the current state of ethical preparedness. To this end, we focus our efforts in this article on the examination of one substantial area: ethical guidance in pandemic plans. We argue that, due in part to their focus on considerations arising specifically in relation to pandemics of influenza origin, pandemic plans and their existing ethical guidance are ill-equipped to anticipate and facilitate the navigation of unique ethical challenges that may arise in other infectious disease pandemics. We proceed by outlining three reasons why this is so, and situate our analysis in the context of the EVD outbreak and the threat posed by drug-resistant tuberculosis: (1) different infectious diseases have distinct characteristics that challenge anticipated or existing modes of pandemic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery, (2) clear, transparent, context-specific ethical reasoning and justification within current influenza pandemic plans are lacking, and (3) current plans neglect the context of how other significant pandemics may manifest. We conclude the article with several options for reflecting upon and ultimately addressing ethical issues that may emerge with different infectious disease pandemics.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 25 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 28 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,880,740
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Monash Bioethics Review
#24
of 144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,748
of 284,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Monash Bioethics Review
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 284,522 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.