ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
A scoping review of ethical aspects of public-private partnerships in digital health.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Digital Healthcare Better Than None? The Digital Health Technology Dilemma in Low-Income Countries.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- The Genetic Data Market: Institutional Governance of Academic/Industry Research Partnerships for the Public Good.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Partnerships between public and private organizations in digital health can promote more accessible, affordable, and high-quality care, but they also raise ethical and governance challenges. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, identifying 46 studies examining ethical aspects of digital health public-private partnerships (PPPs). Three key themes emerged: data privacy and consent, ensuring public benefit and access, and good governance and demonstrating trustworthiness. We provide recommendations for each theme. To foster responsible innovation, we conclude that early and contextual operationalisation of ethics guidelines in PPPs is necessary to balance respect for fundamental values with the pursuit of impactful innovation. If PPPs become more successful as a result, this contributes to reducing the research waste of failed collaborations. Further research should clarify the scope of PPPs and definition of 'public benefit', and we call for critical study on the 'economization' of digital health promoted by public and private sector organizations.
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.