Bridging ethical gaps in digital health research: a framework for informed consent aligned with NIH guidance.

IF 3.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Rahma Rizky Alifia, Malihe Sadeghi, Maheswari Eluru, Mohammad Jafari, Maria Adela Grando
{"title":"Bridging ethical gaps in digital health research: a framework for informed consent aligned with NIH guidance.","authors":"Rahma Rizky Alifia, Malihe Sadeghi, Maheswari Eluru, Mohammad Jafari, Maria Adela Grando","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01291-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital health technologies, including mobile applications, wearable devices, and sensors, are rapidly transforming clinical research. However, current informed consent practices often fall short of addressing the unique ethical risks introduced by these technologies. This study aims to develop and assess a comprehensive ethical consent framework to improve transparency, equity, and participant protection in digital health research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a consent framework aligned with national research ethics guidance, including 63 attributes and 93 subattributes across four domains: Consent, Grantee (Researcher) Permissions, Grantee (Researcher) Obligations, and Technology. We conducted thematic analysis under guidance and then reviewed 25 informed consent forms from real-world digital health studies to expand the guidance and assess each form's alignment with the framework. We used descriptive statistics to measure attribute completeness and to identify missing ethical elements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>None of the consent forms fully adhered to all the required or recommended ethical elements, especially those related to technology-specific risks. The highest completeness for the required attributes reached only 73.5%. We also identified four ethically salient consent elements not present in the current national guidance: commercial profit sharing, study information disclosure, during-study result sharing, and data removal requests.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings reveal persistent ethical gaps in participant protection and highlight the need for more comprehensive, equity-oriented consent practices. Our framework offers a practical tool to strengthen transparency, autonomy, and justice in digital health research.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"132"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01291-5","RegionNum":1,"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

Background: Digital health technologies, including mobile applications, wearable devices, and sensors, are rapidly transforming clinical research. However, current informed consent practices often fall short of addressing the unique ethical risks introduced by these technologies. This study aims to develop and assess a comprehensive ethical consent framework to improve transparency, equity, and participant protection in digital health research.

Methods: We developed a consent framework aligned with national research ethics guidance, including 63 attributes and 93 subattributes across four domains: Consent, Grantee (Researcher) Permissions, Grantee (Researcher) Obligations, and Technology. We conducted thematic analysis under guidance and then reviewed 25 informed consent forms from real-world digital health studies to expand the guidance and assess each form's alignment with the framework. We used descriptive statistics to measure attribute completeness and to identify missing ethical elements.

Results: None of the consent forms fully adhered to all the required or recommended ethical elements, especially those related to technology-specific risks. The highest completeness for the required attributes reached only 73.5%. We also identified four ethically salient consent elements not present in the current national guidance: commercial profit sharing, study information disclosure, during-study result sharing, and data removal requests.

Conclusions: These findings reveal persistent ethical gaps in participant protection and highlight the need for more comprehensive, equity-oriented consent practices. Our framework offers a practical tool to strengthen transparency, autonomy, and justice in digital health research.

弥合数字健康研究中的伦理鸿沟:符合美国国立卫生研究院指导的知情同意框架。
背景:包括移动应用程序、可穿戴设备和传感器在内的数字卫生技术正在迅速改变临床研究。然而,目前的知情同意实践往往无法解决这些技术带来的独特伦理风险。本研究旨在开发和评估一个全面的伦理同意框架,以提高数字健康研究的透明度、公平性和参与者保护。方法:我们开发了一个符合国家研究伦理指导的同意框架,包括四个领域的63个属性和93个子属性:同意、被资助者(研究者)权限、被资助者(研究者)义务和技术。我们在指导下进行了专题分析,然后审查了来自现实世界数字健康研究的25份知情同意表,以扩大指导并评估每种表格与框架的一致性。我们使用描述性统计来度量属性的完整性,并识别缺失的伦理元素。结果:没有一份同意书完全遵守所有要求或推荐的伦理要素,特别是与技术特定风险相关的伦理要素。所需属性的最高完整性仅达到73.5%。我们还确定了当前国家指南中未出现的四个伦理上显著的同意要素:商业利润分享、研究信息披露、研究期间结果共享和数据删除请求。结论:这些发现揭示了参与者保护方面持续存在的伦理差距,并强调需要更全面、以公平为导向的同意实践。我们的框架提供了一个实用的工具,以加强数字健康研究的透明度、自主性和公正性。
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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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