ReviewIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2015
Too much information: visual research ethics in the age of wearable cameras.
Review in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The replica dilemma: older patients' views on virtual models made from their health data-a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Reducing annotation burden in physical activity research using vision language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Investigating the biomechanics of falls in older adults in long-term care using a video camera: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Between War and Peace, Past and Future: Experiencing the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2023Article
- Capturing children food exposure using wearable cameras and deep learning.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Article
- Using Wearable Cameras to Investigate Health-Related Daily Life Experiences: A Literature Review of Precautions and Risks in Empirical Studies.Research ethics · 2022Article
- Everyday visual demands of people with low vision: A mixed methods real-life recording study.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- A validation study of the Eurostat harmonised European time use study (HETUS) diary using wearable technology.BMC public health · 2019Article
- I Can't Be Myself: Effects of Wearable Cameras on the Capture of Authentic Behavior in the Wild.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2018Article
- Wearable camera-derived microenvironments in relation to personal exposure to PMEnvironment international · 2018Article
- Exploring the opportunities for food and drink purchasing and consumption by teenagers during their journeys between home and school: a feasibility study using a novel method.Public health nutrition · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When everything you see is data, what ethical principles apply? This paper argues that first-person digital recording technologies challenge traditional institutional approaches to research ethics, but that this makes ethics governance more important, not less so. We review evolving ethical concerns across four fields: Visual ethics; ubiquitous computing; mobile health; and grey literature from applied or market research. Collectively, these bodies of literature identify new challenges to traditional notions of informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, privacy, beneficence and maleficence. Challenges come from the ever-increasing power, breadth and multi-functional integration of recording technologies, and the ubiquity and normalization of their use by participants. Some authors argue that these evolving relationships mean that institutional ethics governance procedures are irrelevant or no longer apply. By contrast, we argue that the fundamental principles of research ethics frameworks have become even more important for the protection of research participants, and that institutional frameworks need to adapt to keep pace with the ever-increasing power of recording technologies and the consequent risks to privacy. We conclude with four recommendations for efforts to ensure that contemporary visual recording research is held appropriately accountable to ethical standards: (i) minimizing the detail, scope, integration and retention of captured data, and limiting its accessibility; (ii) formulating an approach to ethics that takes in both the 'common rule' approaches privileging anonymity and confidentiality together with principles of contextual judgement and consent as an ongoing process; (iii) developing stronger ethical regulation of research outside academia; (iv) engaging the public and research participants in the development of ethical guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25537955What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.