Evidence mapPaperPMID 41311463Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025

Creating a Basic Ethical Framework for Digital Lifestyle Interventions: A Narrative Review.

Nicolien D M Dinklo, Maartje H N Schermer, Ineke Bolt, Hafez Ismaili M'hamdi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nicolien D M DinkloErasmus Medical Center, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Maartje H N SchermerErasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Health Policy, and Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Ineke BoltErasmus Medical Center, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Hafez Ismaili M'hamdiMaastricht University, Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital tools are often seen as promising avenues for promoting and sustaining healthy lifestyle behaviors. They not only offer benefits such as personalization, scalability, and cost-effectiveness but also raise significant ethical concerns. Issues such as equitable access, informed consent, and fair outcomes, particularly for vulnerable populations, must be addressed. An ethical framework is needed to guide the creation of digital lifestyle interventions. A narrative review was conducted across 3 domains: (1) general ethical principles for public health interventions, (2) ethical frameworks for lifestyle interventions, and (3) ethical considerations for digital tools in health promotion. A total of 16 articles were found across all 3 inclusion domains. The following 5 core ethical themes were identified: (1) respect for autonomy; (2) beneficence; (3) harms; (4) equity; and (5) responsibility, sustainability, and accountability. Two ethical considerations stood out in the context of digital interventions: health equity and privacy. Although digital tools may be an effective form of lifestyle intervention, they can disproportionately benefit individuals already in advantaged positions. We present a basic ethical framework for guiding the development and deployment of these digital tools. The framework highlights the tensions that may arise between competing ethical principles and helps developers determine which considerations are most relevant, and to whom, at different stages of intervention design and development.

Identifiers

PMID41311463
PMCPMC12648102

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.