Home › Research › Digital health tools
Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders
Wangmo T, Lipps M, Kressig RW, Ienca M.. BMC medical ethics, 2019-12-19
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Advances in artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and wearable computing are creating novel technological opportunities for mitigating the global burden of population ageing and improving the quality of care for older adults with dementia and/or age-related disability. Intelligent assistive technology (IAT) is the umbrella term defining this ever-evolving spectrum of intelligent applications for the older and disabled population. However, the implementation of IATs has been observed to be sub-optimal due to a number of barriers in the translation of novel applications from the designing labs to the bedside. Furthermore, since these technologies are designed to be used by vulnerable individuals with age- and multi-morbidity-related frailty and cognitive disability, they are perceived to raise important ethical challenges, especially when they involve machine intelligence, collect sensitive data or operate in close proximity to the human body. Thus, the goal of this paper is to explore and assess the ethical issues that professional stakeholders perceive in the development and use of IATs in elderly and dementia care. Methods We conducted a multi-site study involving semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and health professionals. We analyzed the interview data using a descriptive thematic analysis to inductively explore relevant ethical challenges. Results Our findings indicate that professional stakeholders find issues of patient autonomy and informed consent, quality of data management, distributive justice and human contact as ethical priorities. Divergences emerged in relation to how these ethical issues are interpreted, how conflicts between different ethical principles are resolved and what solutions should be implemented to overcome current challenges. Conclusions Our findings indicate a general agreement among professional stakeholders on the ethical promises and challenges raised by the use of IATs among older and disabled users. Yet, notable divergences persist regarding how these ethical challenges can be overcome and what strategies should be implemented for the safe and effective implementation of IATs. These findings provide technology developers with useful information about unmet ethical needs. Study results may guide policy makers with firsthand information from relevant stakeholders about possible solutions for ethically-aligned technology governance.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wangmo, T., Lipps, M., Kressig, R. W., & Ienca, M. (2019). Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders. BMC medical ethics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0437-z
Vancouver
Wangmo T, Lipps M, Kressig RW, Ienca M. Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders. BMC medical ethics. 2019. doi:10.1186/s12910-019-0437-z. PMID: 31856798.
BibTeX
@article{wangmo2019-31856798,
author = {Wangmo, T. and Lipps, M. and Kressig, R. W. and Ienca, M.},
title = {{Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders}},
journal = {BMC medical ethics},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1186/s12910-019-0437-z},
pmid = {31856798},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0437-z}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Our findings indicate that professional stakeholders find issues of patient autonomy and informed consent, quality of data management, distributive justice and human contact as ethical priorities.
- Conclusions Our findings indicate a general agreement among professional stakeholders on the ethical promises and challenges raised by the use of IATs among older and disabled users.
- These findings provide technology developers with useful information about unmet ethical needs.
- Study results may guide policy makers with firsthand information from relevant stakeholders about possible solutions for ethically-aligned technology governance.
Why it matters
Interviews with professional stakeholders identified patient autonomy and informed consent, data management quality, distributive justice, and human contact as ethical priorities for intelligent assistive technology in dementia care. The study concerns ethical issues in technology development and use, not treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC medical ethics) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | BMC Medical Ethics: journal h-index 93 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 5 / 7 | Cited 196 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 4 / 5 | 21.8 citations a year over 9 year(s) since 2019 |
| Impact for its field and year | 5 / 6 | Cited 29.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 3 / 4 | Cited 114 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Marcello Ienca: h-index 38 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | ETH Zurich: institution h-index 1,286 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31856798) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 47 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1186/s12910-019-0437-z
- PubMed: 31856798
- Original source →
- Free full text: BMC Medical Ethics →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also in Digital health tools
178 studies in the library are filed under Digital health tools with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Digital health tools hub.