Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28476723›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Ethics Considerations in Global Mobile Phone-Based Surveys of Noncommunicable Diseases: A Conceptual Exploration.

Joseph Ali, Alain B Labrique, Kara Gionfriddo, George Pariyo, Dustin G Gibson, Bridget Pratt, Molly Deutsch-Feldman, Adnan A Hyder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Measuring childhood mortality through mobile phone interviews in Mozambique.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors.

Joseph AliBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4767-2512
Alain B LabriqueDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2502-7819
Kara GionfriddoBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3019-9634
George PariyoDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4411-2309
Dustin G GibsonDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9073-3376
Bridget PrattDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4934-3560
Molly Deutsch-FeldmanGillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6191-930X
Adnan A HyderBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7292-577X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobile phone coverage has grown, particularly within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), presenting an opportunity to augment routine health surveillance programs. Several LMICs and global health partners are seeking opportunities to launch basic mobile phone-based surveys of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The increasing use of such technology in LMICs brings forth a cluster of ethical challenges; however, much of the existing literature regarding the ethics of mobile or digital health focuses on the use of technologies in high-income countries and does not consider directly the specific ethical issues associated with the conduct of mobile phone surveys (MPS) for NCD risk factor surveillance in LMICs. In this paper, we explore conceptually several of the central ethics issues in this domain, which mainly track the three phases of the MPS process: predata collection, during data collection, and postdata collection. These include identifying the nature of the activity; stakeholder engagement; appropriate design; anticipating and managing potential harms and benefits; consent; reaching intended respondents; data ownership, access and use; and ensuring LMIC sustainability. We call for future work to develop an ethics framework and guidance for the use of mobile phones for disease surveillance globally.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneHumansNoncommunicable DiseasesRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicinebioethicsethicsmHealthmobile phone surveynoncommunicable diseasesresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID28476723
PMCPMC5438462

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.