Cited by 85Ethics and bioethics in healthcarePublic Health Policies and EducationData-Driven Disease Surveillance

Ethical issues in public health surveillance: a systematic qualitative review

Open access
Klingler, Corinna, Silva, Diego Steven, Schuermann, Christopher, Reis, Andreas Alois, Saxena, Abha, Strech, Daniel·2017·BMC Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Public health surveillance is not ethically neutral and yet, ethics guidance and training for surveillance programmes is sparse. Development of ethics guidance should be based on comprehensive and transparently derived overviews of ethical issues and arguments. However, existing overviews on surveillance ethics are limited in scope and in how transparently they derived their results. Our objective was accordingly to provide an overview of ethical issues in public health surveillance; in addition, to list the arguments put forward with regards to arguably the most contested issue in surveillance, that is whether to obtain informed consent. METHODS: Ethical issues were defined based on principlism. We assumed an ethical issue to arise in surveillance when a relevant normative principle is not adequately considered or two principles come into conflict. We searched Pubmed and Google Books for relevant publications. We analysed and synthesized the data using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Our search strategy retrieved 525 references of which 83 were included in the analysis. We identified 86 distinct ethical issues arising in the different phases of the surveillance life-cycle. We further identified 20 distinct conditions that make it more or less justifiable to forego informed consent procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic qualitative review of ethical issues in public health surveillance resulting in a comprehensive ethics matrix that can inform guidelines, reports, strategy papers, and educational material and raise awareness among practitioners.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-017-4200-4

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inherent bias in medical input data, such as class imbalance, can be reflected in model outputs and can influence model explanations.

    “In addition, the inherent bias in the input (medical) data (e.g., class imbalance) can be reflected in the model's outputs i.e., model might prefer a specific class as compared to other classes and this bias might influence the explanations of the model [170].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klingler, C., Silva, D. S., Schuermann, C., Reis, A. A., Saxena, A., & Strech, D.
Affiliations
  • Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin (DE)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
Corresponding author
Klingler, Corinna
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2017-04-04
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
295-295
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2605151798
Cited by
84
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6
FWCI
5.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Carlo Schmid Programme for Internships in International Organisations and EU-Institutions
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Data-Driven Disease Surveillance
Keywords
disease surveillance, ethics of surveillance, informed consent, principlism, ethical conflicts
MeSH terms
Humans, Ethics, Research, Public Health Surveillance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review