Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39802961›Full record

ArticleInformation, communication and society2024

Sphere transgressions in medical research: tactical engagements with Apple's ResearchKit.

Marthe Stevens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Information, communication and society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Repair, Regeneration, and Replacement, Revisited (Redux).Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025
    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

1 author.

Marthe StevensDepartment of Ethics and Political Philosophy, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0135-0523

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decade, large technology companies have started many initiatives to stimulate and innovate in the sphere of medical research. A prominent example is the ResearchKit software framework launched by tech giant Apple in 2015. This software framework enables medical researchers to develop research apps on the iPhone that collect and access diverse types of research data. The 'sphere transgressions' theoretical lens (Sharon, 2021a; 2021b) draws attention to the risks associated with such initiatives. For instance, that large technology companies could utilize the initiatives to change the sphere of medical research in line with their own values and interests. However, the theoretical lens risks portraying a simplistic one-directional understanding of Big Tech colonizing the sphere of medical research. This paper draws attention to medical researchers and their everyday interactions. Based on interviews with medical researchers using Apple's ResearchKit in the Netherlands and the United States, the paper shows that researchers are not passive recipients of Big Tech's initiatives. Instead, they respond to their initiatives in a variety of ways: not simply by welcoming or resisting Apple's ResearchKit, but also by 'making do' using a variety of tactics (de Certeau, 1984). Thinking in terms of tactics, it is argued in the discussion, helps to identify needs and interests that are of crucial importance to researchers and the broader sphere of medical research. These insights can be used to strengthen the sphere of medical research and promote responsible innovation.

Indexed as

Big Techde CerteauDigital trialsmedical researchResearchKittactics

Identifiers

PMID39802961
PMCPMC11716652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.