ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Self-monitoring of health - user viewpoints on gathering data using consumer health technologies during leisure time.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Introduction: Consumer Health Technologies (CHTs), including wearables and brain-activity monitoring devices, are increasingly integrated into everyday life, extending beyond clinical settings into leisure activities. Yet, their ethical and social implications, especially in unregulated, non-clinical contexts, remain underexplored. Methods: This qualitative study examines how individuals perceive and engage with CHTs by combining guided interviews and pre-interview questionnaires. It focuses on attitudes toward health data collection, data sharing, privacy concerns, and the use of EEG-supported devices. Results: Findings reveal a complex landscape of trust and concern. While participants generally favored sharing data with research institutions over corporations or insurers, they were skeptical about broad consent models. Some acknowledged potential health benefits of CHTs and EEG-supported technologies, but also expressed concerns about data security, behavioral pressure, and the normalization of self-optimization. Discussion: The results underscore the need to center user perspectives in the development of CHTs, to promote transparent and context-sensitive privacy policies, and to anticipate ethical implications. In particular, the article argues for ethical frameworks to guide the use of EEG-supported technologies in everyday settings, ensuring alignment with societal values and equitable access to digital health benefits.
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.