社区水氟化伦理:第2部分-如何在文献中评价社区水氟化伦理?范围审查

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE British Dental Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1038/s41415-024-8057-5
Bhavini Patel, Thomas Anthony Dyer
{"title":"社区水氟化伦理:第2部分-如何在文献中评价社区水氟化伦理?范围审查","authors":"Bhavini Patel, Thomas Anthony Dyer","doi":"10.1038/s41415-024-8057-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim To examine how the ethics of community water fluoridation has been appraised in the literature. Method A scoping review using an updated Arksey and O''Malley framework. Six electronic databases were searched: Medline via OVID; Scopus; Web of Science; Cochrane Library; StarPlus and Google Scholar. Grey literature and reference lists of included studies were also searched. Results In total, 51 studies from 15 countries were included. Many referred to biomedical ethical principles intended for clinical rather than public health interventions. Some primarily aimed to appraise its ethics whereas others considered it as part of more general discussions on fluoridation. While most acknowledged its complexity, those more supportive of fluoridation often emphasised collective benefit and those less supportive emphasised infringement of autonomy or personal liberty and concerns about harm. Few referred to public health ethics principles and frameworks available in the literature. Conclusion Different approaches have been taken to appraise the ethics of fluoridation. Frequently, these were conceived for individual medical rather than public health interventions and are inadequate to resolve tension between inevitable infringement of individual consent and collective benefit in public health. Other approaches conceived specifically for public health exist that have more utility in debates and ethical decision-making.","PeriodicalId":9229,"journal":{"name":"British Dental Journal","volume":"238 5","pages":"336-343"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-024-8057-5.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ethics of community water fluoridation: Part 2 - how has the ethics of community water fluoridation been appraised in the literature? A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Bhavini Patel, Thomas Anthony Dyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41415-024-8057-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim To examine how the ethics of community water fluoridation has been appraised in the literature. Method A scoping review using an updated Arksey and O''Malley framework. Six electronic databases were searched: Medline via OVID; Scopus; Web of Science; Cochrane Library; StarPlus and Google Scholar. Grey literature and reference lists of included studies were also searched. Results In total, 51 studies from 15 countries were included. Many referred to biomedical ethical principles intended for clinical rather than public health interventions. Some primarily aimed to appraise its ethics whereas others considered it as part of more general discussions on fluoridation. While most acknowledged its complexity, those more supportive of fluoridation often emphasised collective benefit and those less supportive emphasised infringement of autonomy or personal liberty and concerns about harm. Few referred to public health ethics principles and frameworks available in the literature. Conclusion Different approaches have been taken to appraise the ethics of fluoridation. Frequently, these were conceived for individual medical rather than public health interventions and are inadequate to resolve tension between inevitable infringement of individual consent and collective benefit in public health. Other approaches conceived specifically for public health exist that have more utility in debates and ethical decision-making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Dental Journal\",\"volume\":\"238 5\",\"pages\":\"336-343\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-024-8057-5.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Dental Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-024-8057-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-024-8057-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的探讨文献中对社区饮水氟化的伦理评价。方法使用更新的Arksey和O“Malley框架进行范围审查。检索了6个电子数据库:Medline via OVID;斯高帕斯;Web of Science;Cochrane图书馆;StarPlus和谷歌Scholar。还检索了纳入研究的灰色文献和参考文献列表。结果共纳入来自15个国家的51项研究。许多人提到了用于临床而非公共卫生干预的生物医学伦理原则。一些人的主要目的是评价其伦理性,而另一些人则认为它是关于氟化的更广泛讨论的一部分。虽然大多数人承认氟化的复杂性,但那些更支持氟化的人往往强调集体利益,而那些不太支持的人则强调侵犯自主权或个人自由以及对伤害的担忧。很少有人提到文献中现有的公共卫生伦理原则和框架。结论对氟化的伦理评价方法不同。这些措施往往是为个人医疗干预而非公共卫生干预而制定的,不足以解决公共卫生中不可避免的侵犯个人同意与集体利益之间的紧张关系。其他专门为公共卫生设想的方法在辩论和伦理决策中更有用处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The ethics of community water fluoridation: Part 2 - how has the ethics of community water fluoridation been appraised in the literature? A scoping review
Aim To examine how the ethics of community water fluoridation has been appraised in the literature. Method A scoping review using an updated Arksey and O''Malley framework. Six electronic databases were searched: Medline via OVID; Scopus; Web of Science; Cochrane Library; StarPlus and Google Scholar. Grey literature and reference lists of included studies were also searched. Results In total, 51 studies from 15 countries were included. Many referred to biomedical ethical principles intended for clinical rather than public health interventions. Some primarily aimed to appraise its ethics whereas others considered it as part of more general discussions on fluoridation. While most acknowledged its complexity, those more supportive of fluoridation often emphasised collective benefit and those less supportive emphasised infringement of autonomy or personal liberty and concerns about harm. Few referred to public health ethics principles and frameworks available in the literature. Conclusion Different approaches have been taken to appraise the ethics of fluoridation. Frequently, these were conceived for individual medical rather than public health interventions and are inadequate to resolve tension between inevitable infringement of individual consent and collective benefit in public health. Other approaches conceived specifically for public health exist that have more utility in debates and ethical decision-making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Dental Journal
British Dental Journal 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
15.40%
发文量
1096
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The role of the BDJ is to inform its readers of ideas, opinions, developments and key issues in dentistry - clinical, practical and scientific - stimulating interest, debate and discussion amongst dentists of all disciplines. All papers published in the BDJ are subject to rigorous peer review.
期刊最新文献
The role of multi-acid and traditional acid etching agents on the surface roughness of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic material. Oral health perceptions among elite athletes and elite para-athletes: psychosocial impacts, sports performance. Association between area-level deprivation and hospital dental admissions in children under five. Sterilising device tackles bathroom hygiene Tooth wear time-bomb
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1