Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28376811›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers' perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies.

Giles Birchley, Richard Huxtable, Madeleine Murtagh, Ruud Ter Meulen, Peter Flach, Rachael Gooberman-Hill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Smart moves for an aging population.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Giles BirchleyCentre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. giles.birchley@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2973-2163
Richard HuxtableCentre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Madeleine MurtaghPolicy, Ethics and Life Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Ruud Ter MeulenCentre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Peter FlachDepartment of Computer Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rachael Gooberman-HillSchool of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmart-home technologies, comprising environmental sensors, wearables and video are attracting interest in home healthcare delivery. Development of such technology is usually justified on the basis of the technology's potential to increase the autonomy of people living with long-term conditions. Studies of the ethics of smart-homes raise concerns about privacy, consent, social isolation and equity of access. Few studies have investigated the ethical perspectives of smart-home engineers themselves. By exploring the views of engineering researchers in a large smart-home project, we sought to contribute to dialogue between ethics and the engineering community.

methodsEither face-to-face or using Skype, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 early- and mid-career smart-home researchers from a multi-centre smart-home project, who were asked to describe their own experience and to reflect more broadly about ethical considerations that relate to smart-home design. With participants' consent, interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic approach.

resultsTwo overarching themes emerged: in 'Privacy', researchers indicated that they paid close attention to negative consequences of potential unauthorised information sharing in their current work. However, when discussing broader issues in smart-home design beyond the confines of their immediate project, researchers considered physical privacy to a lesser extent, even though physical privacy may manifest in emotive concerns about being watched or monitored. In 'Choice', researchers indicated they often saw provision of choice to end-users as a solution to ethical dilemmas. While researchers indicated that choices of end-users may need to be restricted for technological reasons, ethical standpoints that restrict choice were usually assumed and embedded in design.

conclusionsThe tractability of informational privacy may explain the greater attention that is paid to it. However, concerns about physical privacy may reduce acceptability of smart-home technologies to future end-users. While attention to choice suggests links with privacy, this may misidentify the sources of privacy and risk unjustly burdening end-users with problems that they cannot resolve. Separating considerations of choice and privacy may result in more satisfactory treatment of both. Finally, through our engagement with researchers as participants this study demonstrates the relevance of (bio)ethics as a critical partner to smart-home engineering.

Indexed as

AttitudeBioethical IssuesTechnologyChoice BehaviorConfidentialityDelivery of Health CareEngineeringFemaleHome Care ServicesHumansMalePrivacyResearch PersonnelChoiceEmpirical ethicsEngineering ethicsHealth technologyPrivacyQualitative researchResearch ethicsSmart-homeUbiquitous computing

Identifiers

PMID28376811
PMCPMC5379767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.