The impact of digital health technologies on moral responsibility: a scoping review.

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-11-30 DOI:10.1007/s11019-024-10238-3
E Meier, T Rigter, M P Schijven, M van den Hoven, M A R Bak
{"title":"The impact of digital health technologies on moral responsibility: a scoping review.","authors":"E Meier, T Rigter, M P Schijven, M van den Hoven, M A R Bak","doi":"10.1007/s11019-024-10238-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent publications on digital health technologies highlight the importance of 'responsible' use. References to the concept of responsibility are, however, frequently made without providing clear definitions of responsibility, thus leaving room for ambiguities. Addressing these uncertainties is critical since they might lead to misunderstandings, impacting the quality and safety of healthcare delivery. Therefore, this study investigates how responsibility is interpreted in the context of using digital health technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), telemonitoring, wearables and mobile apps. We conducted a scoping review with a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL and Philosopher's Index. A total of 34 articles were included and categorized using a theoretical framework of responsibility aspects, and revealed two main findings. First, we found that digital health technologies can expand and shift existing 'role responsibilities' among caregivers, patients and technology. Second, moral responsibility is often equated with liability or accountability, without clear justification. Articles describe new ways in which physicians can be held accountable, particularly in the context of AI, and discuss the emergence of a 'responsibility gap' where no-one can be fully responsible for AI-generated outcomes. The literature also shows that m-Health technologies can increase patients' accountability for their own health. However, there was limited discussion in the reviewed literature on whether these attributions of accountability are appropriate. We conclude with implications for practice and suggestions for expanding the theoretical framework of moral responsibility, recommending further study on responsibility of collectives and artificial entities, and on the role of virtue in digital health.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-024-10238-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent publications on digital health technologies highlight the importance of 'responsible' use. References to the concept of responsibility are, however, frequently made without providing clear definitions of responsibility, thus leaving room for ambiguities. Addressing these uncertainties is critical since they might lead to misunderstandings, impacting the quality and safety of healthcare delivery. Therefore, this study investigates how responsibility is interpreted in the context of using digital health technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), telemonitoring, wearables and mobile apps. We conducted a scoping review with a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL and Philosopher's Index. A total of 34 articles were included and categorized using a theoretical framework of responsibility aspects, and revealed two main findings. First, we found that digital health technologies can expand and shift existing 'role responsibilities' among caregivers, patients and technology. Second, moral responsibility is often equated with liability or accountability, without clear justification. Articles describe new ways in which physicians can be held accountable, particularly in the context of AI, and discuss the emergence of a 'responsibility gap' where no-one can be fully responsible for AI-generated outcomes. The literature also shows that m-Health technologies can increase patients' accountability for their own health. However, there was limited discussion in the reviewed literature on whether these attributions of accountability are appropriate. We conclude with implications for practice and suggestions for expanding the theoretical framework of moral responsibility, recommending further study on responsibility of collectives and artificial entities, and on the role of virtue in digital health.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数字卫生技术对道德责任的影响:范围审查。
最近关于数字卫生技术的出版物强调了“负责任”使用的重要性。但是,在提到责任的概念时,经常没有提供责任的明确定义,从而留下模棱两可的余地。解决这些不确定性至关重要,因为它们可能导致误解,影响医疗保健服务的质量和安全。因此,本研究探讨了在使用数字医疗技术(包括人工智能(AI)、远程监控、可穿戴设备和移动应用程序)的背景下,责任是如何解释的。我们在PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL和哲学家索引中进行了系统的搜索,进行了范围审查。共有34篇文章被纳入并使用责任方面的理论框架进行分类,并揭示了两个主要发现。首先,我们发现数字医疗技术可以扩大和改变护理人员、患者和技术之间现有的“角色责任”。其次,道德责任往往等同于责任或问责,没有明确的理由。文章描述了医生可以被问责的新方法,特别是在人工智能的背景下,并讨论了“责任缺口”的出现,即没有人可以对人工智能产生的结果完全负责。文献还表明,移动医疗技术可以增加患者对自身健康的问责。然而,在审查的文献中,关于这些责任归因是否适当的讨论有限。最后,我们提出了对实践的启示和扩大道德责任理论框架的建议,建议进一步研究集体和人工实体的责任,以及美德在数字健康中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
期刊最新文献
«Doctors must live»: a care ethics inquiry into physicians' late modern suffering. Compassion in the justification of physician-assisted dying: Gandhi's non-violence vs. Aristotle's virtues and vices. Silence as epistemic agency in mania. Correction: The impact of digital health technologies on moral responsibility: a scoping review. Correction: The role of social justice in triage revisited: a threshold conception.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1