Evidence mapPaperPMID 36301408Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2022

Equity in AgeTech for Ageing Well in Technology-Driven Places: The Role of Social Determinants in Designing AI-based Assistive Technologies.

Giovanni Rubeis, Mei Lan Fang, Andrew Sixsmith

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Artificial Intelligence and Assistive Robotics in Healthcare Services: Applications in Silver Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Giovanni RubeisDepartment General Health Studies, Division Biomedical and Public Health Ethics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria. giovanni.rubeis@kl.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8265-9436
Mei Lan FangDepartment General Health Studies, Division Biomedical and Public Health Ethics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria.
Andrew SixsmithDepartment General Health Studies, Division Biomedical and Public Health Ethics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AgeTech involves the use of emerging technologies to support the health, well-being and independent living of older adults. In this paper we focus on how AgeTech based on artificial intelligence (AI) may better support older adults to remain in their own living environment for longer, provide social connectedness, support wellbeing and mental health, and enable social participation. In order to assess and better understand the positive as well as negative outcomes of AI-based AgeTech, a critical analysis of ethical design, digital equity, and policy pathways is required. A crucial question is how AI-based AgeTech may drive practical, equitable, and inclusive multilevel solutions to support healthy, active ageing.In our paper, we aim to show that a focus on equity is key for AI-based AgeTech if it is to realize its full potential. We propose that equity should not just be an extra benefit or minimum requirement, but the explicit aim of designing AI-based health tech. This means that social determinants that affect the use of or access to these technologies have to be addressed. We will explore how complexity management as a crucial element of AI-based AgeTech may potentially create and exacerbate social inequities by marginalising or ignoring social determinants. We identify bias, standardization, and access as main ethical issues in this context and subsequently, make recommendations as to how inequities that stem form AI-based AgeTech can be addressed.

Indexed as

Healthy AgingSelf-Help DevicesArtificial IntelligenceSocial Determinants of HealthTechnology

Identifiers

PMID36301408
PMCPMC9613787

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.