Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The participatory value-sensitive design (VSD) of a mHealth app targeting citizens with dementia in a Danish municipality
Cenci A, Ilskov SJ, Andersen NS, Chiarandini M.. AI and ethics, 2023-04-13
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The Sammen Om Demens (together for dementia), a citizen science project developing and implementing an AI-based smartphone app targeting citizens with dementia, is presented as an illustrative case of ethical, applied AI entailing interdisciplinary collaborations and inclusive and participative scientific practices engaging citizens, end users, and potential recipients of technological-digital innovation. Accordingly, the participatory Value-Sensitive Design of the smartphone app (a tracking device) is explored and explained across all of its phases (conceptual, empirical, and technical). Namely, from value construction and value elicitation to the delivery, after various iterations engaging both expert and non-expert stakeholders, of an embodied prototype built on and tailored to their values. The emphasis is on how moral dilemmas and value conflicts, often resulting from diverse people's needs or vested interests, have been resolved in practice to deliver a unique digital artifact with moral imagination that fulfills vital ethical-social desiderata without undermining technical efficiency. The result is an AI-based tool for the management and care of dementia that can be considered more ethical and democratic, since it meaningfully reflects diverse citizens' values and expectations on the app. In the conclusion, we suggest that the co-design methodology outlined in this study is suitable to generate more explainable and trustworthy AI, and also, it helps to advance towards technical-digital innovation holding a human face.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cenci, A., Ilskov, S. J., Andersen, N. S., & Chiarandini, M. (2023). The participatory value-sensitive design (VSD) of a mHealth app targeting citizens with dementia in a Danish municipality. AI and ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00274-9
Vancouver
Cenci A, Ilskov SJ, Andersen NS, Chiarandini M. The participatory value-sensitive design (VSD) of a mHealth app targeting citizens with dementia in a Danish municipality. AI and ethics. 2023. doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00274-9. PMID: 37360145.
BibTeX
@article{cenci2023-37360145,
author = {Cenci, A. and Ilskov, S. J. and Andersen, N. S. and Chiarandini, M.},
title = {{The participatory value-sensitive design (VSD) of a mHealth app targeting citizens with dementia in a Danish municipality}},
journal = {AI and ethics},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1007/s43681-023-00274-9},
pmid = {37360145},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00274-9}
}
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
- The result is an AI-based tool for the management and care of dementia that can be considered more ethical and democratic, since it meaningfully reflects diverse citizens' values and expectations on the app.
- In the conclusion, we suggest that the co-design methodology outlined in this study is suitable to generate more explainable and trustworthy AI, and also, it helps to advance towards technical-digital innovation holding a human face.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
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. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (AI and ethics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 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 | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37360145) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “design”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “design”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.