Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41774298›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026

A Novel Pathway for Integrating Ethics into Digital Technology Design: A Person-Centred Co-Design Approach Developed in the Context of Assistive Technologies for Older Adults.

Tania Moerenhout, Inga Hunter, Angela Ballantyne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Tania MoerenhoutDepartment of Bioethics, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, Aotearoa New Zealand. tania.moerenhout@otago.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6742-5260
Inga HunterSchool of Management and Marketing, Massey University, Palmerston North, Aotearoa New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0877-3211
Angela BallantyneDepartment of Primary Health Care & General Practice, Wellington, and Department of Bioethics, University of Otago, Dunedin, Aotearoa New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2666-9557

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How can we effectively incorporate ethical considerations into technology design? Several frameworks and evaluation methods focused on ethical aspects of new and emerging technologies have been proposed over the past two decades. Despite this, we still lack a robust pathway for integrating ethical considerations into the design process. We examine three existing methods: ethical technology assessment, value-sensitive design, and embedded ethics. Drawing on their strengths and limitations, we propose a novel pathway for integrating ethics (PIE) that is flexible, multi-disciplinary, and person-centred. It consists of four stages: (1) bringing ethicists and designers together; (2) identifying ethical tensions; (3) exploring solutions to ethical tensions through stakeholder engagement; (4) integrating identified solutions into technology design. This pathway has been developed in the context of digital assistive technology for older adults’ care, building on the principles of person-centred care and co-design, and embeds four fundamental values: inclusivity, collaboration, flexibility, and practicality. This novel approach could also be expanded into other areas of digital health technology design and development.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyEquipment DesignSelf-Help DevicesAgedDigital HealthHumansPatient-Centered CareStakeholder ParticipationDigital assistive technologiesEmbedded ethicsHealth technologyIntegrated ethicsOlder adults

Identifiers

PMID41774298
PMCPMC13035599

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.