ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Cyberspatial privacy in the digital age: a proxemics-based framework with a healthcare application.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Algorithmic gaslighting in healthcare: mechanisms, harms, and epistemic injustice in context.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2026Article
- Tele-Oncology in the Post-Pandemic Era: Clinical Integration, Access Disparities and Medico-Legal Accountability.Current oncology reports · 2026Review
- Can health technologies be "care optimizers"? A normative evaluation of digital health technologies in light of postphenomenological reflections.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid digitalization of healthcare-from telemedicine and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven diagnostics to wearable biosensors-has profoundly disrupted traditional norms of patient confidentiality. Classical privacy theories, anchored in physical co-presence and individual control, struggle to address the ethical challenges posed by opaque, persistent, and infrastructural data exposures in digital clinical environments.
methodsThis study employs a theoretical-conceptual methodology to develop a multidimensional privacy framework responsive to the spatial and technological complexities of the digital clinic. Drawing from Edward T. Hall's proxemics theory and the concept of cyberspace, we reinterpret interpersonal spatial zones (intimate, personal, social, public) in cyberspace. We introduce "cyberspatial privacy" as a transversal dimension that modulates privacy expectations across physical and digital layers. A hypothetical case-"Patient X," a woman undergoing hybrid care-is used to demonstrate the framework's practical utility in ethical analysis.
resultsThe proposed framework reconceptualizes privacy as a dynamic continuum structured by both spatial proximity and digital mediation. By mapping risks across four proxemic zones and overlaying a cyberspatial dimension, the model reveals how privacy breaches differ not only in kind but in normative weight. For instance, biometric data collected by wearables (intimate zone) carries higher ethical risk than metadata exposed via public interfaces. The case of Patient X illustrates how classical theories fail to capture this gradient, while the new model enables zone-sensitive assessments of vulnerability, exposure, and trust.
conclusionsThis framework advances the ethical understanding of privacy in digitally mediated healthcare by offering a granular, relational, and context-aware approach. It supports clinicians, designers, and policymakers in tailoring privacy safeguards to the spatial and digital contours of care. By reframing privacy as a condition of relational co-presence rather than isolated consent, this model promotes ethically robust design and governance in the era of cyber-augmented medicine.
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.