ArticleFrontiers in digital health2021
From General Principles to Procedural Values: Responsible Digital Health Meets Public Health Ethics.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Negotiating privacy and responsibility in digital public health: a qualitative study of the social and ethical implications of peer-to-peer health data sharing.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The Emergence of AI in Public Health Is Calling for Operational Ethics to Foster Responsible Uses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- The impact of digital health technologies on moral responsibility: a scoping review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- Scoping Review Shows the Dynamics and Complexities Inherent to the Notion of "Responsibility" in Artificial Intelligence within the Healthcare Context.Asian bioethics review · 2024Article
- Sync fast and solve things-best practices for responsible digital health.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Stuck in translation: Stakeholder perspectives on impediments to responsible digital health.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- You Can't Have AI Both Ways: Balancing Health Data Privacy and Access Fairly.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Most existing work in digital ethics is modeled on the "principlist" approach to medical ethics, seeking to articulate a small set of general principles to guide ethical decision-making. Critics have highlighted several limitations of such principles, including (1) that they mask ethical disagreements between and within stakeholder communities, and (2) that they provide little guidance for how to resolve trade-offs between different values. This paper argues that efforts to develop responsible digital health practices could benefit from paying closer attention to a different branch of medical ethics, namely public health ethics. In particular, I argue that the influential "accountability for reasonableness" (A4R) approach to public health ethics can help overcome some of the limitations of existing digital ethics principles. A4R seeks to resolve trade-offs through decision-procedures designed according to certain shared procedural values. This allows stakeholders to recognize decisions reached through these procedures as legitimate, despite their underlying disagreements. I discuss the prospects for adapting A4R to the context of responsible digital health and suggest questions for further research.
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.