ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Ethical-Regulatory Guidelines for AI in Palliative Care Rehabilitation.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into rehabilitation practice has expanded rapidly, including its emerging application in palliative care contexts. Although international organisations have established ethical and governance frameworks for AI in healthcare, these initiatives remain largely high-level and are not specifically tailored to the clinical complexity, vulnerability, and relational dimensions of palliative care rehabilitation. The absence of context-specific ethical-regulatory guidance poses challenges for responsible implementation in ethically sensitive settings. This study aimed to consolidate ethically grounded regulatory guidance for the use of AI in palliative care rehabilitation by translating existing international principles into context-sensitive domains.
methodsA qualitative documentary analysis with a normative ethical-regulatory orientation was conducted using the READ (Ready, Extract, Analyse, Distil) framework. Authoritative international policy, governance, and regulatory documents addressing AI in healthcare were identified and analysed. Data were extracted using a structured analytical table and coded according to predefined ethical-regulatory domains derived from previously published ethical guidelines and verified through documentary analysis.
resultsThe analysis identified five convergent ethical-regulatory domains recurrent across international governance frameworks: (1) Human oversight and clinical responsibility; (2) Patient autonomy, preferences, and proportionality; (3) Transparency and explainability; (4) Fairness, equity, and non-discrimination; and (5) Professional competence and ethical literacy. These domains were synthesised into practical ethical-regulatory considerations linking ethical principles with governance expectations and clinical implementation requirements.
conclusionsThis study provides context-sensitive ethical-regulatory guidance that bridges high-level AI governance principles with the operational realities of palliative care rehabilitation. By systematising and operationalising existing ethical norms, the proposed framework supports responsible clinical decision-making, strengthens institutional accountability, and safeguards patient dignity and autonomy in vulnerable care contexts.
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.