Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33544777›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A survey on the attitudes of parents with young children on in-home monitoring technologies and study designs for infant research.

Laurel A Fish, Emily J H Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Laurel A FishInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5905-655X
Emily J H JonesCentre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Remote in-home infant monitoring technologies hold great promise for increasing the scalability and safety of infant research (including in regard to the current Covid-19 pandemic), but remain rarely employed. These technologies hold a number of fundamental challenges and ethical concerns that need addressing to aid the success of this fast-growing field. In particular, the responsible development of such technologies requires caregiver input. We conducted a survey of the opinions of 410 caregivers on the viability, privacy and data access of remote in-home monitoring technologies and study designs. Infant-friendly wearable devices (such as sensing body suits) were viewed favourably. Caregivers were marginally more likely to accept video and audio recording in the home if data was anonymised (through automated processing) at point of collection, particularly when observations were lengthy. Caregivers were more open to international data sharing for anonymous data. Caregivers were interested in viewing all types of data, but were particularly keen to access video and audio recordings for censoring purposes (i.e., to delete data segments). Taken together, our results indicate generally positive attitudes to remote in-home monitoring technologies and studies for infant research but highlight specific considerations such as safety, privacy and family practicalities (e.g. multiple caregivers, visitors and varying schedules) that must be taken into account when developing future studies.

Indexed as

AttitudeChild DevelopmentEthics, ResearchRemote Sensing TechnologyCaregiversFemaleHumansInfantMaleParentsPrivacySmartphoneVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID33544777
PMCPMC7864397

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.