On misempowerment & mobile health.

IF 3.1 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Jesse Gray, Heidi Mertes
{"title":"On misempowerment & mobile health.","authors":"Jesse Gray, Heidi Mertes","doi":"10.1007/s11019-025-10277-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mobile health tools often claim to empower their users by giving them the knowledge they need to take control of their health. However, this notion of empowerment, what we refer to as the knowledge-control paradigm, only superficially engages with the concept and leaves out the different ways in which people come to be empowered. We first identify two distinct elements of empowerment: psychological empowerment, which pertains to beliefs about one's power and control over their health, and relational empowerment, which is connected with one's actual power to control their health, as well as the ability to hold those in positions of power (the empowered) accountable. The knowledge-control paradigm is incapable of creating empowered individuals in the relational sense, and it is only when knowledge is coupled with both the means and the motivations to control health and/or hold the empowered to account, that one can be considered empowered. Mobile health tools that overemphasize knowledge as the empowering mechanism often misempower their users, that is, they create a belief in users about their power to control their health that does not align with their actual capacity to do so. This mismatch between beliefs and reality can have far reaching consequences as with knowledge, ability, control, and power comes responsibility. We worry not only that the misempowered will be viewed as more responsible for their health than the circumstances permit, but also, that these individuals will lose the ability to hold those in positions of power accountable..</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","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/s11019-025-10277-4","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

Mobile health tools often claim to empower their users by giving them the knowledge they need to take control of their health. However, this notion of empowerment, what we refer to as the knowledge-control paradigm, only superficially engages with the concept and leaves out the different ways in which people come to be empowered. We first identify two distinct elements of empowerment: psychological empowerment, which pertains to beliefs about one's power and control over their health, and relational empowerment, which is connected with one's actual power to control their health, as well as the ability to hold those in positions of power (the empowered) accountable. The knowledge-control paradigm is incapable of creating empowered individuals in the relational sense, and it is only when knowledge is coupled with both the means and the motivations to control health and/or hold the empowered to account, that one can be considered empowered. Mobile health tools that overemphasize knowledge as the empowering mechanism often misempower their users, that is, they create a belief in users about their power to control their health that does not align with their actual capacity to do so. This mismatch between beliefs and reality can have far reaching consequences as with knowledge, ability, control, and power comes responsibility. We worry not only that the misempowered will be viewed as more responsible for their health than the circumstances permit, but also, that these individuals will lose the ability to hold those in positions of power accountable..

关于不当授权和移动医疗。
移动医疗工具通常声称通过向用户提供控制自己健康所需的知识来增强他们的能力。然而,这种授权的概念,我们称之为知识控制范式,只是表面上与这个概念有关,而忽略了人们获得授权的不同方式。我们首先确定了赋权的两个不同要素:心理赋权,这与一个人对自己健康的权力和控制的信念有关;关系赋权,这与一个人控制自己健康的实际权力有关,以及让掌权的人(被赋权的人)承担责任的能力有关。知识-控制范式无法在关系意义上创造有权能的个人,只有当知识与控制健康和(或)追究有权能者责任的手段和动机相结合时,一个人才可被视为有权能。将过分强调知识作为授权机制的移动医疗工具往往会让用户失去授权,也就是说,它们让用户相信自己有能力控制自己的健康,而这与他们的实际能力并不相符。这种信念与现实之间的不匹配会产生深远的影响,因为随着知识、能力、控制力和权力的产生,责任也随之而来。我们不仅担心被剥夺权力的人会被认为对自己的健康负有比情况允许的更多的责任,而且还担心这些人将失去追究掌权者责任的能力。
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信