| Title |
Ethical Design of Intelligent Assistive Technologies for Dementia: A Descriptive Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9976-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcello Ienca, Tenzin Wangmo, Fabrice Jotterand, Reto W. Kressig, Bernice Elger |
| Abstract |
The use of Intelligent Assistive Technology (IAT) in dementia care opens the prospects of reducing the global burden of dementia and enabling novel opportunities to improve the lives of dementia patients. However, with current adoption rates being reportedly low, the potential of IATs might remain under-expressed as long as the reasons for suboptimal adoption remain unaddressed. Among these, ethical and social considerations are critical. This article reviews the spectrum of IATs for dementia and investigates the prevalence of ethical considerations in the design of current IATs. Our screening shows that a significant portion of current IATs is designed in the absence of explicit ethical considerations. These results suggest that the lack of ethical consideration might be a codeterminant of current structural limitations in the translation of IATs from designing labs to bedside. Based on these data, we call for a coordinated effort to proactively incorporate ethical considerations early in the design and development of new products. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Ireland | 1 | 20% |
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 261 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 38 | 15% |
| Unknown | 87 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 30 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 25 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 65 | 25% |
| Unknown | 89 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,174,263
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#470
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,306
of 321,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#20
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 321,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.