ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Using Participatory Design to Inform the Connected and Open Research Ethics (CORE) Commons.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical, legal, and social implications of digital health: A needs assessment from the Society of Behavioral Medicine to inform capacity building for behavioral scientists.Translational behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Lessons Learned: Beta-Testing the Digital Health Checklist for Researchers Prompts a Call to Action by Behavioral Scientists.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- "Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource.Life sciences, society and policy · 2021Article
- Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Precision Health: The Role of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in Advancing the Vision.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mobile health (mHealth) research involving pervasive sensors, mobile apps and other novel data collection tools and methods present new ethical, legal, and social challenges specific to informed consent, data management and bystander rights. To address these challenges, a participatory design approach was deployed whereby stakeholders contributed to the development of a web-based commons to support the mHealth research community including researchers and ethics board members. The CORE (Connected and Open Research Ethics) platform now features a community forum, a resource library and a network of nearly 600 global members. The utility of the participatory design process was evaluated by analyzing activities carried out over an 8-month design phase consisting of 86 distinct events including iterative design deliberations and social media engagement. This article describes how participatory design yielded 55 new features directly mapped to community needs and discusses relationships to user engagement as demonstrated by a steady increase in CORE member activity and followers on Twitter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30725245What 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.