Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26358284›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2016

Ethical Questions in Medical Electronic Adherence Monitoring.

Jeffrey I Campbell, Nir Eyal, Angella Musiimenta, Jessica E Haberer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Interventions for improving adherence to amblyopia treatments in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

4 authors.

Jeffrey I CampbellCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Nir EyalDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. nir_eyal@hms.harvard.edu.
Angella MusiimentaDepartment of Information Technology, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda.
Jessica E HabererCenter for Global Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

The ethics of electronic adherence monitoring for HIV research and care in UgandaR21AI108329 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI EYAL, NIR, HABERER, JESSICA ELIZABETH · 2013 to 2014
$411k
NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI108329NIAID NIH HHS R21AI108329-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic adherence monitors (EAMs) record and report an array of health behaviors, ranging from taking daily medications to wearing medical devices. EAMs are utilized in research worldwide and are being investigated for clinical use. However, there is also growing popular concern about the extent to which electronic devices may be used to monitor individuals, including allegations in the media that EAMs represent a move towards "Big Brother" in medicine. Here, we highlight the unique benefits as well as the potential ethical challenges that electronic adherence monitoring generates. These challenges surround autonomy, privacy and confidentiality, trust, and ancillary care obligations. We describe key questions within each of these domains that warrant further investigation, and present potential solutions to many of the concerns raised.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceConfidentialityHumansMonitoring, AmbulatoryPrivacyconfidentialityelectronic adherence monitoringpatient adherencepersonal autonomyprivacyresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID26358284
PMCPMC4762813

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.