Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41417441›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026

Social aspects of privacy in technologically assisted dementia care.

Eike Buhr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2026. 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

1 author.

Eike BuhrEthics in Medicine, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany. eike.buhr@uni-oldenburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2869-0827

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technical assistance systems (TA) are increasingly used in the care of people with dementia (PwD). A central ethical concern in this context is the potential violation of privacy. However, the prevailing debate – shaped largely by liberal traditions – tends to conceptualize privacy in terms of individual autonomy. Yet PwD progressively lose their capacity for autonomous decision-making, and their everyday lives are shaped by close caregiving relationships. This study adopts an empirically informed medical ethics approach to examine the value of privacy for PwD and the role of interpersonal relationships in this context. Drawing on 12 interviews with PwD and 15 with caregiving relatives, the findings show that privacy remains a meaningful value for PwD, independently of individual autonomy, and is closely tied to their well-being. Moreover, privacy and relationships emerge as mutually constitutive: on the one hand, privacy supports the maintenance of meaningful relationships; on the other, close relationships can enable PwD to experience and preserve privacy. These insights carry concrete ethical implications for the design and implementation of TA systems, as well as for the medical care of PwD.

Indexed as

CaregiversDementiaPrivacyHumansInterpersonal RelationsPersonal AutonomyQualitative ResearchDementia careEthicsPrivacyQualitative researchTechnical assistance systems

Identifiers

PMID41417441
PMCPMC12960460

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.