ArticleBMC health services research2022
Clarifying responsibility: professional digital health in the doctor-patient relationship, recommendations for physicians based on a multi-stakeholder dialogue in the Netherlands.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Digital interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative focus group study on the perspectives of rheumatology care providers in Germany.BMC rheumatology · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators of Digital Transformation in Health Care: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Opportunities, challenges, and ethical implications of online pediatric nutrition consultation: a nursing perspective.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Experiences of using the iCHANGE digital health application in the curriculum for medical students in Thailand.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The impact of digital health technologies on moral responsibility: a scoping review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- Value Propositions for Digital Shared Medication Plans to Boost Patient-Health Care Professional Partnerships: Co-Design Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 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
- eHealth implementationFrontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Associations of perceived changes in work due to digitalization and the amount of digital work with job strain among physicians: a national representative sample.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Digital health in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2023Review
- What constitutes adequate legal protection for the collection, use and sharing of mobility and location data in health care in South Africa?South African journal of science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementation of digital health (eHealth) generally involves adapting pre-established and carefully considered processes or routines, and still raises multiple ethical and legal dilemmas. This study aimed to identify challenges regarding responsibility and liability when prescribing digital health in clinical practice. This was part of an overarching project aiming to explore the most pressing ethical and legal obstacles regarding the implementation and adoption of digital health in the Netherlands, and to propose actionable solutions.
methodsA series of multidisciplinary focus groups with stakeholders who have relevant digital health expertise were analysed through thematic analysis.
resultsThe emerging general theme was 'uncertainty regarding responsibilities' when adopting digital health. Key dilemmas take place in clinical settings and within the doctor-patient relationship ('professional digital health'). This context is particularly challenging because different stakeholders interact. In the absence of appropriate legal frameworks and codes of conduct tailored to digital health, physicians' responsibility is to be found in their general duty of care. In other words: to do what is best for patients (not causing harm and doing good). Professional organisations could take a leading role to provide more clarity with respect to physicians' responsibility, by developing guidance describing physicians' duty of care in the context of digital health, and to address the resulting responsibilities.
conclusionsAlthough legal frameworks governing medical practice describe core ethical principles, rights and obligations of physicians, they do not suffice to clarify their responsibilities in the setting of professional digital health. Here we present a series of recommendations to provide more clarity in this respect, offering the opportunity to improve quality of care and patients' health. The recommendations can be used as a starting point to develop professional guidance and have the potential to be adapted to other healthcare professionals and systems.
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.