Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42095442›Full record

ArticleDeveloping world bioethics2026

Contextualising Mental Privacy in South Africa: Legal, Ethical, and Socio-Cultural Considerations With Policy Recommendations.

Marietjie Botes, Melodie Labuschaigne, Camille Casteleyn, Becky Inkster, Mark Sheppard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Developing world bioethics, 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

5 authors.

Marietjie BotesCentre for Research Evaluation Science and Technology (CREST), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.
Melodie LabuschaigneDepartment of Jurisprudence, University of South Africa, Preller Street, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa.
Camille CasteleynAlbert Luthuli Leadership Institute (ALLI), University of Pretoria, Lynnwood Road, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa.
Becky InksterDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Trinity Lane, Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Mark SheppardIndependent Research Lab, The Lαβ, Trinity Street, Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mental privacy is a growing concern as neurotechnologies and digital mental health tools collect and process sensitive brain-related data. In South Africa, cultural and religious diversity adds complexity to protecting mental privacy, with traditional healing practices, communal decision-making, and spiritual beliefs influencing mental health perceptions and care. This article examines the ethical, legal, and socio-cultural challenges of mental privacy in South Africa, focusing on cognitive autonomy, informed consent, and exploitation risks. It critiques global regulatory frameworks, highlighting the limitations of the EU's GDPR and the fragmented US approach in addressing culturally diverse and economically unequal contexts. The article proposes enhancements to South Africa's Protection of Personal Information Act, emphasising the need for explicit classification of neural and mental health data as sensitive categories. Additionally, it recommends culturally informed consent processes, collaboration with traditional and religious leaders, and public awareness initiatives to ensure inclusive mental privacy protections that respect cultural diversity while safeguarding individual rights.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityCultural DiversityInformed ConsentMental HealthPrivacyHumansPersonal AutonomySouth AfricaCognitive autonomyCultural diversityData protectionInformed consentMental privacyNeurotechnologies

Identifiers

PMID42095442
PMCPMC13570735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.