Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39961668›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2025

The ethics of using virtual assistants to help people in vulnerable positions access care.

Steven R Kraaijeveld, Hanneke van Heijster, Nadine Bol, Kirsten E Bevelander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Steven R KraaijeveldDepartment of Ethics, Law & Medical Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands s.r.kraaijeveld@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6338-6305
Hanneke van HeijsterDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Nadine BolDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Kirsten E BevelanderDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People in vulnerable positions who need support in their daily lives often face challenges in receiving timely access to care; for instance, due to disabilities or individual and situational vulnerabilities. There has been an increasing turn to technology-mediated ways to improve access to care, which has raised ethical questions about the appropriateness and inclusiveness of digitalising care requests. Specifically, for people in vulnerable positions, digitalisation is meant to facilitate requests for access to healthcare resources and to simplify the process of navigating the healthcare system. In a multidisciplinary research project, we examined the use and value of a 'sensitive' virtual assistant that can accommodate different needs of target groups through inclusive design, adaptive technology and artificial intelligence. This paper presents empirical findings from focus groups with care recipients and caregivers about the sensitive virtual assistant and relates the findings to five larger ethical issues associated with the use of virtual assistants in healthcare settings and care practices more generally. It highlights the risk that, even with the inclusion of target groups in the design of digitalised care assistants, some people may benefit significantly less than others.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityVulnerable PopulationsAdultArtificial IntelligenceCaregiversFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePersons with DisabilitiesEthicsQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID39961668
PMCPMC12772568

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.