Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40418517›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025

Unresolved ethical questions of mHealth apps for Alzheimer's disease prevention.

Karina Korecky, Silke Schicktanz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

2 authors.

Karina Korecky *Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-3409-5882
Silke SchicktanzDepartment of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. sschick@gwdg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9627-752X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, medical research has sparked hope that up to a third of dementia cases could be prevented. This optimism is driven by a shift in the understanding of dementia and, in particular, Alzheimer's Disease (AD)-from being a rapid-onset brain disease in later life to a condition strongly linked to lifestyle factors, progressing slowly and gradually through asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, and symptomatic stages with varying degrees of severity. Accompanying this evolving perception, the use of mobile healthcare applications (mHealth apps) based on dementia prevention research has been on the rise. Health policymakers and companies increasingly advocate for these apps. However, concerns remain about the medical quality of such mHealth apps for dementia prevention. Bioethical research has highlighted significant challenges associated with their use. This paper critically examines dementia prevention strategies through the lenses of mHealth technologies. Exploring four mHealth apps for dementia prevention as case studies, we identify and analyze unsolved ethical issues related to primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Hereby we offer a new perspective on familiar ethical dilemmas in dementia prevention, and emphasize the need to examine potentially intensified challenges in the context of digital health in the future in more depth.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseMobile ApplicationsTelemedicineHumansData protectionEthics of dementia preventionmHealth appsResponsibilizationStigma

Identifiers

PMID40418517
PMCPMC12380646

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.