ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Ethical Imperatives for Working With Diverse Populations in Digital Research.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping Peer Support in Antidepressant Discussions on Reddit: Pilot Network Analysis.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Development and Systematic Evaluation of a Progressive Web Application for Women With Cardiac Pain: Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Hispanic and Latinx Community Members on AI-Enabled mHealth Tools: Qualitative Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Review
- A Novel mHealth App for Smokers Living With HIV Who Are Ambivalent About Quitting Smoking: Formative Research and Randomized Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- A Digital Mask-Voiceprint System for Postpandemic Surveillance and Tracing Based on the STRONG Strategy.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital research methodologies are driving a revolution in health technology but do not yet fully engage diverse and historically underrepresented populations. In this paper, we explore the ethical imperative for such engagement alongside accompanying challenges related to recruitment, appreciation of risk, and confidentiality, among others. We critically analyze existing research ethics frameworks and find that their reliance on individualistic and autonomy-focused models of research ethics does not offer adequate protection in the context of the diversity imperative. To meet the requirements of justice and inclusivity in digital research, methods will benefit from a reorientation toward more participatory practices.
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.