ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Practical templates for digital health ethics applications in Sweden: lessons from a sensor-based monitoring study.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obtaining ethical approval for digital health research involving vulnerable populations presents significant challenges for researchers, particularly when navigating complex regulatory frameworks like Sweden's ethical review system. Despite official guidelines, researchers often struggle to translate general principles into concrete application documents that satisfy review authorities. This paper presents practical, reusable templates developed through the successful preparation of an ethics application for a radar-based monitoring study of older adults in Sweden. The application, involving cross-border data handling and vulnerable populations, received first-submission approval from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Etikprövningsmyndigheten) without reviewer comments. We provide structured templates for key application sections, identify common pitfalls, and offer evidence-based guidance for researchers preparing similar applications. These resources are practice-grounded (one approved applications plus practice-based reflections) and are intended to reduce administrative burden and improve application quality; they should be adapted to local institutional requirements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.