ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Ethical dimensions of healthcare nudges: a PRISMA-ScR-guided scoping review and framework for responsible behavioral governance.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nudging has gained momentum in healthcare as a behavioral strategy to support beneficial health choices. However, its ethical legitimacy remains contested, especially regarding autonomy, transparency, fairness, and risks of covert influence. Objective: This scoping review synthesizes ethical debates on healthcare nudges and proposes governance principles to guide ethically responsible implementation. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR framework across international and Chinese databases. Conceptual and empirical bioethics literature from 2013 to 2023 was analyzed through thematic synthesis. Results: Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria. Ethical concerns centered on autonomy (22/23), informed consent and transparency (4/23), equity and distributive fairness (2/23), and risk of unintended harm (1/23). Reflective nudges that support deliberation were more widely endorsed than covert defaults. Recent scholarship emphasizes transparency, proportionality, stakeholder participation, and equity audits as conditions for ethical legitimacy. Contribution: To our knowledge, this is the first review to systematically synthesize ethical dimensions of healthcare nudges using the PRISMA-ScR framework and to propose an actionable governance model for responsible behavioral regulation. The review advances ethical theory by integrating principlism, consequentialism, and deontology with cross-cultural public health ethics, and policy insights by identifying operational safeguards for health systems. Conclusion: Healthcare nudges can be ethically justified when designed with transparency, meaningful opt-out options, proportionality of influence, and equity safeguards. Responsible behavioral governance requires culturally sensitive implementation, independent oversight, and continuous monitoring of autonomy and fairness outcomes. Future empirical work should examine real-world impacts on patient agency and equity across diverse clinical and cultural contexts.
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.