ArticleJournal of medical ethics2020
Prioritarian principles for digital health in low resource settings.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-empirical methods for ethics research on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health: a systematic journal review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Pooled it
- From continental strategy to country implementation: a document-based scorecard for assessing health security and sovereignty readiness in Africa.Global health action · 2026Article
- Creating a Basic Ethical Framework for Digital Lifestyle Interventions: A Narrative Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Privacy, Exploitation and Global Disease Surveillance: Can We Justly Prevent the Next Pandemic?Public health ethics · 2025Article
- Design Preferences, Routines, and Well-Being of Older Adults Using Voice-Guided Digital Mindfulness: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Perceived clinical and ethical impact of digital transformation in healthcare and research: A survey in the MENA region.PloS one · 2025Article
- Availability and accessibility of services to address financial toxicity described by Australian lung cancer patients and healthcare professionals.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Examining how Ethics in Relation to Health Technology is Described in the Research Literature: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Principles to guide the effective use of technology to support capacity development in global health partnerships.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- The ethical challenges facing the widespread adoption of digital healthcare technology.Health and technology · 2022Article
- Stakeholder perspectives and requirements to guide the development of digital technology for palliative cancer services: a multi-country, cross-sectional, qualitative study in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe.BMC palliative care · 2021Article
- The Sociotechnical Ethics of Digital Health: A Critique and Extension of Approaches From Bioethics.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This theoretical paper argues for prioritarianism as an ethical underpinning for digital health in contexts of extreme disadvantage. In support of this claim, the paper develops three prioritarian principles for making ethical decisions for digital health programme design, grounded in the normative position that the greater the need (of the marginalised), the stronger the moral claim. The principles are positioned as an alternative view to the prevailing utilitarian approach to digital health, which the paper argues is not sufficient to address the needs of the worst off. As researchers of digital health, we must ensure that the most globally marginalised are not overlooked by overtly technocentric implementation practices. Consequently, the paper concludes by advocating for use of the three principles to support stronger critical reflection on the ethics involved in the design and implementation of digital health programmes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.