ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Between data and touch: how nurses and patients negotiate the human boundary under data-driven surveillance in chronic care.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of data-driven continuous monitoring into chronic disease management is often presented as a solution for clinical efficiency. However, this technological shift may substantially reshape care relations, power, and intimacy. Prevailing research, focused on technical validation, fails to capture how such systems operate as social forces. A critical, theory-informed examination of these lived transformations is needed. This study goes beyond documenting ethical dilemmas by critically investigating how data-driven surveillance restructures nurse-patient dynamics. We aim to uncover the mechanisms through which data-driven surveillance disciplines both caregivers and recipients, and to identify where and how the irreducible elements of humanistic care persist and resist.
methodsA critical qualitative design was employed, guided by Foucault's concept of governmentality as a sensitising lens. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 registered nurses and 15 patients with hypertension or type 2 diabetes in one Chinese tertiary hospital that had, for six months, implemented real-time automated physiological monitoring. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis with a hybrid (deductive-inductive) approach.
resultsOur analysis reveals three core mechanisms: (1) systematic arbitration (nurses as constant negotiators between automated alerts and situated clinical judgment); (2) datafied self-surveillance, patients internalise the data-driven gaze, policing their own behaviour; (3) a shared convergence around the human boundary, both nurses and patients actively defend empathy, contextual interpretation, and emotional recognition as domains irreducible to data. This boundary is not a passive remnant but an active, shared accomplishment.
conclusionDigital surveillance in chronic care does not act as a neutral adjunct. Instead, it operates as a disciplinary technology that asymmetrically disciplines nurses and patients. However, the identified human boundary represents a critical site of resistance and re-humanisation. The future of humane digital health depends on deliberately designing socio-technical systems that strengthen, rather than erode, the relational and interpretive core of clinical practice.
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.