↓ Skip to main content

Model-Based Policymaking: A Framework to Promote Ethical “Good Practice” in Mathematical Modeling for Public Health Policymaking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
32 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Model-Based Policymaking: A Framework to Promote Ethical “Good Practice” in Mathematical Modeling for Public Health Policymaking
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa A. Boden, Iain J. McKendrick

Abstract

Mathematical models are increasingly relied upon as decision support tools, which estimate risks and generate recommendations to underpin public health policies. However, there are no formal agreements about what constitutes professional competencies or duties in mathematical modeling for public health. In this article, we propose a framework to evaluate whether mathematical models that assess human and animal disease risks and control strategies meet standards consistent with ethical "good practice" and are thus "fit for purpose" as evidence in support of policy. This framework is derived from principles of biomedical ethics: independence, transparency (autonomy), beneficence/non-maleficence, and justice. We identify ethical risks associated with model development and implementation and consider the extent to which scientists are accountable for the translation and communication of model results to policymakers so that the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific evidence base and any socioeconomic and ethical impacts of biased or uncertain predictions are clearly understood. We propose principles to operationalize a framework for ethically sound model development and risk communication between scientists and policymakers. These include the creation of science-policy partnerships to mutually define policy questions and communicate results; development of harmonized international standards for model development; and data stewardship and improvement of the traceability and transparency of models via a searchable archive of policy-relevant models. Finally, we suggest that bespoke ethical advisory groups, with relevant expertise and access to these resources, would be beneficial as a bridge between science and policy, advising modelers of potential ethical risks and providing overview of the translation of modeling advice into policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 24 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Mathematics 4 5%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 30 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 30 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,653,974
of 26,450,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#859
of 14,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,384
of 328,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#5
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,450,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 328,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.