The ethics of sharing preliminary research findings during public health emergencies: a case study from the 2009 influenza pandemic.
Identifieur interne : 000727 ( PubMed/Checkpoint ); précédent : 000726; suivant : 000728The ethics of sharing preliminary research findings during public health emergencies: a case study from the 2009 influenza pandemic.
Auteurs : N S Crowcroft [Canada] ; L C Rosella ; B N PakesSource :
- Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin [ 1560-7917 ] ; 2014.
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- MESH :
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
- epidemiology : Influenza, Human.
- ethics : Decision Making, Public Health.
- methods : Public Health.
- Biomedical Research, Disease Outbreaks, Emergencies, Female, Humans, Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype, Male, Peer Review, Research, Periodicals as Topic.
Abstract
During the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic, a suite of studies conducted in Canada showed an unexpected finding, that patients with medically attended laboratory-confirmed pandemic influenza were more likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccination than test-negative control patients. Different bodies, including scientific journals and government scientific advisory committees, reviewed the evidence simultaneously to determine its scientific validity and implications. Decision-making was complicated when the findings made their way into the media. The normal trajectory of non-urgent research includes peer-review publication after which decision-makers can process the information taking into account other evidence and logistic considerations. In the situation that arose, however, the congruence of an unexpected finding and the simultaneous review of the evidence both within and outside the traditional peer-review sphere raised several interesting issues about how to deal with emerging evidence during a public health emergency. These events are used in this article to aid discussion of the complex interrelationship between researchers, public health decision-makers and scientific journals, the trade-offs between sharing information early and maintaining the peer-review quality assurance process, and to emphasise the need for critical reflection on the practical and ethical norms that govern the way in which research is evaluated, published and communicated in public health emergencies.
DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.es2014.19.24.20831
PubMed: 24970372
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:24970372Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The ethics of sharing preliminary research findings during public health emergencies: a case study from the 2009 influenza pandemic.</title><author><name sortKey="Crowcroft, N S" sort="Crowcroft, N S" uniqKey="Crowcroft N" first="N S" last="Crowcroft">N S Crowcroft</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">Canada</country><wicri:regionArea>Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Ontario</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Rosella, L C" sort="Rosella, L C" uniqKey="Rosella L" first="L C" last="Rosella">L C Rosella</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pakes, B N" sort="Pakes, B N" uniqKey="Pakes B" first="B N" last="Pakes">B N Pakes</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2014">2014</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:24970372</idno><idno type="pmid">24970372</idno><idno type="doi">10.2807/1560-7917.es2014.19.24.20831</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000799</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000799</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">000799</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">000799</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Checkpoint">000727</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Checkpoint" wicri:step="PubMed">000727</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">The ethics of sharing preliminary research findings during public health emergencies: a case study from the 2009 influenza pandemic.</title><author><name sortKey="Crowcroft, N S" sort="Crowcroft, N S" uniqKey="Crowcroft N" first="N S" last="Crowcroft">N S Crowcroft</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">Canada</country><wicri:regionArea>Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Ontario</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Rosella, L C" sort="Rosella, L C" uniqKey="Rosella L" first="L C" last="Rosella">L C Rosella</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pakes, B N" sort="Pakes, B N" uniqKey="Pakes B" first="B N" last="Pakes">B N Pakes</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin</title><idno type="eISSN">1560-7917</idno><imprint><date when="2014" type="published">2014</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Biomedical Research</term><term>Decision Making (ethics)</term><term>Disease Outbreaks</term><term>Emergencies</term><term>Female</term><term>Humans</term><term>Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype</term><term>Influenza, Human (epidemiology)</term><term>Male</term><term>Peer Review, Research</term><term>Periodicals as Topic</term><term>Public Health (ethics)</term><term>Public Health (methods)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Femelle</term><term>Flambées de maladies</term><term>Grippe humaine (épidémiologie)</term><term>Humains</term><term>Mâle</term><term>Prise de décision (éthique)</term><term>Périodiques comme sujet</term><term>Recherche biomédicale</term><term>Santé publique ()</term><term>Santé publique (éthique)</term><term>Sous-type H1N1 du virus de la grippe A</term><term>Urgences</term><term>Évaluation de la recherche par les pairs</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="epidemiology" xml:lang="en"><term>Influenza, Human</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="ethics" xml:lang="en"><term>Decision Making</term><term>Public Health</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Public Health</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="épidémiologie" xml:lang="fr"><term>Grippe humaine</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="éthique" xml:lang="fr"><term>Prise de décision</term><term>Santé publique</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Biomedical Research</term><term>Disease Outbreaks</term><term>Emergencies</term><term>Female</term><term>Humans</term><term>Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype</term><term>Male</term><term>Peer Review, Research</term><term>Periodicals as Topic</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Femelle</term><term>Flambées de maladies</term><term>Humains</term><term>Mâle</term><term>Périodiques comme sujet</term><term>Recherche biomédicale</term><term>Santé publique</term><term>Sous-type H1N1 du virus de la grippe A</term><term>Urgences</term><term>Évaluation de la recherche par les pairs</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">During the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic, a suite of studies conducted in Canada showed an unexpected finding, that patients with medically attended laboratory-confirmed pandemic influenza were more likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccination than test-negative control patients. Different bodies, including scientific journals and government scientific advisory committees, reviewed the evidence simultaneously to determine its scientific validity and implications. Decision-making was complicated when the findings made their way into the media. The normal trajectory of non-urgent research includes peer-review publication after which decision-makers can process the information taking into account other evidence and logistic considerations. In the situation that arose, however, the congruence of an unexpected finding and the simultaneous review of the evidence both within and outside the traditional peer-review sphere raised several interesting issues about how to deal with emerging evidence during a public health emergency. These events are used in this article to aid discussion of the complex interrelationship between researchers, public health decision-makers and scientific journals, the trade-offs between sharing information early and maintaining the peer-review quality assurance process, and to emphasise the need for critical reflection on the practical and ethical norms that govern the way in which research is evaluated, published and communicated in public health emergencies.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">24970372</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2014</Year><Month>09</Month><Day>08</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2019</Year><Month>06</Month><Day>09</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1560-7917</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>19</Volume><Issue>24</Issue><PubDate><Year>2014</Year><Month>Jun</Month><Day>19</Day></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Euro Surveill.</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>The ethics of sharing preliminary research findings during public health emergencies: a case study from the 2009 influenza pandemic.</ArticleTitle><ELocationID EIdType="pii" ValidYN="Y">20831</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>During the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic, a suite of studies conducted in Canada showed an unexpected finding, that patients with medically attended laboratory-confirmed pandemic influenza were more likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccination than test-negative control patients. Different bodies, including scientific journals and government scientific advisory committees, reviewed the evidence simultaneously to determine its scientific validity and implications. Decision-making was complicated when the findings made their way into the media. The normal trajectory of non-urgent research includes peer-review publication after which decision-makers can process the information taking into account other evidence and logistic considerations. In the situation that arose, however, the congruence of an unexpected finding and the simultaneous review of the evidence both within and outside the traditional peer-review sphere raised several interesting issues about how to deal with emerging evidence during a public health emergency. These events are used in this article to aid discussion of the complex interrelationship between researchers, public health decision-makers and scientific journals, the trade-offs between sharing information early and maintaining the peer-review quality assurance process, and to emphasise the need for critical reflection on the practical and ethical norms that govern the way in which research is evaluated, published and communicated in public health emergencies.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Crowcroft</LastName><ForeName>N S</ForeName><Initials>NS</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Rosella</LastName><ForeName>L C</ForeName><Initials>LC</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Pakes</LastName><ForeName>B N</ForeName><Initials>BN</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2014</Year><Month>06</Month><Day>19</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Sweden</Country><MedlineTA>Euro Surveill</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>100887452</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>1025-496X</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><CommentsCorrectionsList><CommentsCorrections RefType="CommentIn"><RefSource>Euro Surveill. 2014;19(24). pii: 20834</RefSource><PMID Version="1">24970369</PMID></CommentsCorrections></CommentsCorrectionsList><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D035843" MajorTopicYN="N">Biomedical Research</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003657" MajorTopicYN="N">Decision Making</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000941" MajorTopicYN="N">ethics</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D004196" MajorTopicYN="Y">Disease Outbreaks</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D004630" MajorTopicYN="Y">Emergencies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005260" MajorTopicYN="N">Female</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D053118" MajorTopicYN="N">Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007251" MajorTopicYN="N">Influenza, Human</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000453" MajorTopicYN="Y">epidemiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008297" MajorTopicYN="N">Male</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D017712" MajorTopicYN="N">Peer Review, Research</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D010506" MajorTopicYN="N">Periodicals as Topic</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011634" MajorTopicYN="N">Public Health</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000941" MajorTopicYN="Y">ethics</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2014</Year><Month>6</Month><Day>28</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2014</Year><Month>6</Month><Day>28</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2014</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>10</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>epublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24970372</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.2807/1560-7917.es2014.19.24.20831</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed><affiliations><list><country><li>Canada</li></country></list><tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Pakes, B N" sort="Pakes, B N" uniqKey="Pakes B" first="B N" last="Pakes">B N Pakes</name><name sortKey="Rosella, L C" sort="Rosella, L C" uniqKey="Rosella L" first="L C" last="Rosella">L C Rosella</name></noCountry><country name="Canada"><noRegion><name sortKey="Crowcroft, N S" sort="Crowcroft, N S" uniqKey="Crowcroft N" first="N S" last="Crowcroft">N S Crowcroft</name></noRegion></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Sante/explor/PandemieGrippaleV1/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000727 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd -nk 000727 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Sante
|area= PandemieGrippaleV1
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Checkpoint
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:24970372
|texte= The ethics of sharing preliminary research findings during public health emergencies: a case study from the 2009 influenza pandemic.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:24970372" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a PandemieGrippaleV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.34. |  |