| Title |
Ethical Implications of User Perceptions of Wearable Devices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9872-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. H. Segura Anaya, Abeer Alsadoon, N. Costadopoulos, P. W. C. Prasad |
| Abstract |
Health Wearable Devices enhance the quality of life, promote positive lifestyle changes and save time and money in medical appointments. However, Wearable Devices store large amounts of personal information that is accessed by third parties without user consent. This creates ethical issues regarding privacy, security and informed consent. This paper aims to demonstrate users' ethical perceptions of the use of Wearable Devices in the health sector. The impact of ethics is determined by an online survey which was conducted from patients and users with random female and male division. Results from this survey demonstrate that Wearable Device users are highly concerned regarding privacy issues and consider informed consent as "very important" when sharing information with third parties. However, users do not appear to relate privacy issues with informed consent. Additionally, users expressed the need for having shorter privacy policies that are easier to read, a more understandable informed consent form that involves regulatory authorities and there should be legal consequences the violation or misuse of health information provided to Wearable Devices. The survey results present an ethical framework that will enhance the ethical development of Wearable Technology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 285 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 52 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 9% |
| Researcher | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 45 | 16% |
| Unknown | 97 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 38 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 7% |
| Engineering | 19 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 60 | 21% |
| Unknown | 111 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,396,174
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#202
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,011
of 425,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.