Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32500471›Full record

ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2020

Ethical Considerations of Using Machine Learning for Decision Support in Occupational Health: An Example Involving Periodic Workers' Health Assessments.

Marianne W M C Six Dijkstra, Egbert Siebrand, Steven Dorrestijn, Etto L Salomons, Michiel F Reneman, Frits G J Oosterveld, Remko Soer, Douglas P Gross, Hendrik J Bieleman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Marianne W M C Six DijkstraSchool of Health, Saxion University of Applied Sciences/AGZ, M.H. Tromplaan 28, 7500 KB, Enschede, The Netherlands. w.m.c.sixdijkstra@saxion.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-5074-2422
Egbert SiebrandResearch Group Ethics & Technology, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Steven DorrestijnResearch Group Ethics & Technology, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Etto L SalomonsSchool of Ambient Intelligence, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Michiel F RenemanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Frits G J OosterveldSchool of Health, Saxion University of Applied Sciences/AGZ, M.H. Tromplaan 28, 7500 KB, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Remko SoerSchool of Health, Saxion University of Applied Sciences/AGZ, M.H. Tromplaan 28, 7500 KB, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Douglas P GrossDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Hendrik J BielemanSchool of Health, Saxion University of Applied Sciences/AGZ, M.H. Tromplaan 28, 7500 KB, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Computer algorithms and Machine Learning (ML) will be integrated into clinical decision support within occupational health care. This will change the interaction between health care professionals and their clients, with unknown consequences. The aim of this study was to explore ethical considerations and potential consequences of using ML based decision support tools (DSTs) in the context of occupational health. Methods We conducted an ethical deliberation. This was supported by a narrative literature review of publications about ML and DSTs in occupational health and by an assessment of the potential impact of ML-DSTs according to frameworks from medical ethics and philosophy of technology. We introduce a hypothetical clinical scenario from a workers' health assessment to reflect on biomedical ethical principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. Results Respect for autonomy is affected by uncertainty about what future consequences the worker is consenting to as a result of the fluctuating nature of ML-DSTs and validity evidence used to inform the worker. A beneficent advisory process is influenced because the three elements of evidence based practice are affected through use of a ML-DST. The principle of non-maleficence is challenged by the balance between group-level benefits and individual harm, the vulnerability of the worker in the occupational context, and the possibility of function creep. Justice might be empowered when the ML-DST is valid, but profiling and discrimination are potential risks. Conclusions Implications of ethical considerations have been described for the socially responsible design of ML-DSTs. Three recommendations were provided to minimize undesirable adverse effects of the development and implementation of ML-DSTs.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthDecision Support TechniquesHumansMachine LearningMaleClinical decision support systemEthicsEvidence based practiceMachine learningMoralsOccupational health

Identifiers

PMID32500471
PMCPMC7406529

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.