PMC:7100305 / 34718-36360 JSONTXT

{"target":"https://pubannotation.org/docs/sourcedb/PMC/sourceid/7100305","sourcedb":"PMC","sourceid":"7100305","source_url":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/7100305","text":"Discussion\nBased on the literature on the politics of disease epidemics, four key themes emerged: (1) the socioeconomic distribution of disease, (2) decision-making in research and development, (3) the credibility of evidence that informs response pathways, and (4) the attribution of infectious disease responsibility. These were used to analyze the narratives of the politics of SARs, Zika, and Ebola in Canada, Brazil, and Liberia respectively, in the peer-reviewed literature (Table 5).\nTable 5 The politics of epidemics: key themes by epidemic\nThere were similarities and differences in the narratives about the different epidemics. Broadly, none of the epidemics had narratives relating to all four themes of the politics of epidemics. However, both Zika and Ebola had narratives on three of the four themes. The SARs literature addressed only two of the four themes. Notably, there was lack of relevant literature on the research and development theme.\nThe finding that the literature on how decisions about what research is funded and conducted during disease epidemics almost exclusively focused on the ethical implications (and did not question the potential power imbalances with regard to who identified the research issue/question and who led the research for example), was surprising, since this was a key theme in the broad politics of epidemics literature. This could, in part, be a reflection of the limitations of the search engines and strategy used in the study which excluded publications, which were deemed biomedical. Conversely, it may be a reflection of limited support for critical research and related publications.","divisions":[{"label":"Title","span":{"begin":0,"end":10}},{"label":"Table caption","span":{"begin":491,"end":548}}],"tracks":[]}