Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24942810›Full record

SynthesisScience and engineering ethics2015

A review of contemporary work on the ethics of ambient assisted living technologies for people with dementia.

Peter Novitzky, Alan F Smeaton, Cynthia Chen, Kate Irving, Tim Jacquemard, Fiachra O'Brolcháin, Dónal O'Mathúna, Bert Gordijn

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Science and engineering ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Peter NovitzkyInstitute of Ethics, Dublin City University, Henry Grattan Building, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland, novitzky.peter2@mail.dcu.ie.
Alan F Smeaton
Cynthia Chen
Kate Irving
Tim Jacquemard
Fiachra O'Brolcháin
Dónal O'Mathúna
Bert Gordijn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ambient assisted living (AAL) technologies can provide assistance and support to persons with dementia. They might allow them the possibility of living at home for longer whilst maintaining their comfort and security as well as offering a way towards reducing the huge economic and personal costs forecast as the incidence of dementia increases worldwide over coming decades. However, the development, introduction and use of AAL technologies also trigger serious ethical issues. This paper is a systematic literature review of the on-going scholarly debate about these issues. More specifically, we look at the ethical issues involved in research and development, clinical experimentation, and clinical application of AAL technologies for people with dementia and related stakeholders. In the discussion we focus on: (1) the value of the goals of AAL technologies, (2) the special vulnerability of persons with dementia in their private homes, (3) the complex question of informed consent for the usage of AAL technologies.

Indexed as

BioethicsDementiaIndependent LivingActivities of Daily LivingHumansInformed ConsentSafetySelf-Help DevicesSocial ValuesTechnology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.