ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Ethical perspectives on GPS tracking for people with dementia: insights from an online citizens' jury.
Article in BMC medical 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe growing number of older adults with dementia is increasingly being met with technological interventions. Among them are GPS-tracking devices that assist people with dementia (PwD) with orientation. The extent to which this technology should be utilized, and how to balance safety, mobility, and privacy has been the subject of extensive scholarly debate.
methodsTo evaluate the range of normative attitudes of lay people towards the issue, we conducted an online citizens’ jury (CJ) with 17 German citizens aged 18 to 67. To examine the relationship between individual perspectives and collective attitudes, we further conducted qualitative interviews with participants. As part of the CJ process, participants collaboratively authored a comprehensive policy proposal containing nuanced views on ethical and technical aspects.
resultsDespite differing perspectives, particularly on the meaning of autonomy, participants reached broad consensus on issues such as informed consent, data protection, and device customization, and were able to agree to disagree on more contentious points.
conclusionsOur analysis demonstrates the capacity of lay participants to engage in ethical reflection, achieve consensus, and navigate disagreement. We further reflect on methodological considerations and examine the contribution lay deliberation can provide to contemporary bioethical debates. The online CJ format enabled in-depth, structured deliberation among diverse lay participants on a complex bioethical topic. The use of video conferencing software allowed for wide geographic participation. Combining the CJ with qualitative interviews and field notes provided rich insight into both collective and individual normative attitudes.
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.