Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31856798›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders.

Tenzin Wangmo, Mirjam Lipps, Reto W Kressig, Marcello Ienca

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. A strategic pathway for the ethical development of AI tools in dementia care.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Balancing ideals and realities: health care professionals' perspectives of and attitudes toward digital patient-centered cancer care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Intelligent Assessment Systems in Medical Education: A Systematic Review.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care - Patients' Perceptions on Caregiving Relationships and Ethics: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Tenzin WangmoInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Mirjam LippsFaculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Reto W KressigChair of Geriatrics, University of Basel; Chief Medical Officer, University Department of Geriatric Medicine Felix Platter, Basel, Switzerland.
Marcello IencaHealth Ethics & Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, HOA H 17, Hottingerstrasse 10, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland. marcello.ienca@hest.ethz.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-8835-5444

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and wearable computing are creating novel technological opportunities for mitigating the global burden of population ageing and improving the quality of care for older adults with dementia and/or age-related disability. Intelligent assistive technology (IAT) is the umbrella term defining this ever-evolving spectrum of intelligent applications for the older and disabled population. However, the implementation of IATs has been observed to be sub-optimal due to a number of barriers in the translation of novel applications from the designing labs to the bedside. Furthermore, since these technologies are designed to be used by vulnerable individuals with age- and multi-morbidity-related frailty and cognitive disability, they are perceived to raise important ethical challenges, especially when they involve machine intelligence, collect sensitive data or operate in close proximity to the human body. Thus, the goal of this paper is to explore and assess the ethical issues that professional stakeholders perceive in the development and use of IATs in elderly and dementia care.

methodsWe conducted a multi-site study involving semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and health professionals. We analyzed the interview data using a descriptive thematic analysis to inductively explore relevant ethical challenges.

resultsOur findings indicate that professional stakeholders find issues of patient autonomy and informed consent, quality of data management, distributive justice and human contact as ethical priorities. Divergences emerged in relation to how these ethical issues are interpreted, how conflicts between different ethical principles are resolved and what solutions should be implemented to overcome current challenges.

conclusionsOur findings indicate a general agreement among professional stakeholders on the ethical promises and challenges raised by the use of IATs among older and disabled users. Yet, notable divergences persist regarding how these ethical challenges can be overcome and what strategies should be implemented for the safe and effective implementation of IATs. These findings provide technology developers with useful information about unmet ethical needs. Study results may guide policy makers with firsthand information from relevant stakeholders about possible solutions for ethically-aligned technology governance.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDementiaEuropeFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelRoboticsSelf-Help DevicesStakeholder ParticipationArtificial intelligenceAssistive technologyAutonomyCareDementiaEthicsJusticeRobotics

Identifiers

PMID31856798
PMCPMC6924051

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.