Notifications
Clear all
Health Technology Assessment
2
Posts
2
Users
0
Reactions
63
Views
Topic starter
Since Public Health Interventions involve human making decisions and complex interaction with social systems, it is not a surprise that it might lead to unintended consequences(1). However, the adverse effects remain to be a neglected topic. (2) The effects are scarcely examined in systematic reviews and not consistently across long term studies (2, 3).
Recently, the interest in the potential risks of public health interventions have rapidly increased trying to categorize the types of harm (4) Evaluators are increasingly encouraged to build diagrammatic logic models and descriptive theories to better understand and explain how interventions are expected to produce outcomes(5).
A stronger emphasis on potential harms brings important ethical considerations. Evaluators may need to inform participants that, although harms are not intended or expected, some possible risks have been identified and will be monitored during the study. This approach can enhance the transparency and quality of the informed consent process (6).
References:
- Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol 2009;43:267–6.
- Lorenc T, Oliver K. Adverse effects of public health interventions: a conceptual framework. J Epidemiol Community Health 2014;68:288–90.
- Ogilvie D, Foster CE, Rothnie H, et al. Interventions to promote walking: systematic review. Br Med J 2007;334:1204.
- Dishion TJ, McCord J, Poulin F. When interventions harm. Am Psychol 1999;54:755–64.
- Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance (draft). London: Medical Research Council, 2013.
- Bonell, C., Jamal, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., & Cummins, S. (2015). ‘Dark logic’: theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health, 69(1), 95-98.
Posted : April 13, 2026 11:47 am
Well said. The unintended consequences, which are inherently coming along with the public health interventions, are being unevaluated. Imagine, during the phases of clinical trials I-IV, if any such unnoticed consequences happen, the community will be affected significantly. However, the possibility is being taken into consideration by adapting the principle "Do no harm" primarily. In the domain of public health, this kind of regulation has historically been lacking. The stakeholders come up with some solutions, such as 'dark logic models' to guide the evaluation of potential harms and underlying mechanisms, which include theorization of agency-structure interactions; building comparative understanding across similar interventions via reciprocal and refutational translation; and consultation with local actors to identify how mechanisms might be derailed, leading to harmful consequences (Bonell et al., 2014). Studies show that dark logic models constitute an additional tool—which can be used in a complementary fashion, alongside others—to better anticipate and prevent conservation harms, as well as to avoid further burdening those who have done the least to cause the biodiversity crisis with conservation's negative socioeconomic impacts.
(Cavanagh & Brehony, 2024)
Reference:
//doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204671 " target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bonell, C., Jamal, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., & Cummins, S. (2014). ‘Dark logic’: theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69(1), 95–98. //doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204671
//doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110380 " target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cavanagh, C., & Brehony, P. (2024). First, do no harm? Dark logic models, social injustice, and the prevention of iatrogenic conservation outcomes. Biological Conservation, 289, 110380. //doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110380
Posted : April 16, 2026 10:17 am