Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Jun;18(3):237-246.
doi: 10.1007/s11904-021-00549-y. Epub 2021 Mar 26.

Ethical Implications of eHealth Tools for Delivering STI/HIV Laboratory Results and Partner Notifications

Affiliations
Review

Ethical Implications of eHealth Tools for Delivering STI/HIV Laboratory Results and Partner Notifications

Motlatso Godongwana et al. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2021 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose of review: eHealth tools are increasingly utilized for communication with patients. Although efficacious and cost-effective, these tools face several barriers that challenge their ethical use in sexual health. We reviewed literature from the past decade to pick illustrative studies of eHealth tools that deliver results of laboratory tests for sexually transmitted infections, including the human immunodeficiency virus, as well as partner notifications. We describe ethical implications for such technologies.

Recent findings: Our review found that despite widespread research on the use of eHealth tools in delivering laboratory results and partner notifications, these studies rarely measured or reported on the ethical implications. Such implications can be organized according to the four major principles in bioethics: beneficence, patient autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice. The beneficence of eHealth typically measures efficacy in comparison to existing standards of care. Patient autonomy includes the ability to opt in or out of eHealth tools, right-based principles of consent, and sovereignty over healthcare data. To adhere to the principle of non-maleficence, relevant harms must be identified and measured-such as unintentional disclosure of illness, sexual orientation, or sexual activity. Justice must also be considered to accommodate all users equally, irrespective of their literacy level, with easy-to-use platforms that provide clear messages. Based on case studies from this review, we developed a list of recommendations for the ethical development and evaluation of eHealth platforms to deliver STI/HIV results to patients and notifications to partners.

Keywords: Bioethics; Contact tracing; HIV; Informed consent; Laboratories; Partner notification; Sexual partners; Sexually transmitted disease; Telemedicine; eHealth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Newman L, Rowley J, Vander Hoorn S, Wijesooriya NS, Unemo M, Low N, et al. Global estimates of the prevalence and incidence of four curable sexually transmitted infections in 2012 based on systematic review and global reporting. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0143304. - PMC - PubMed
    1. UNAIDS. Global HIV & AIDS statistics - 2020 fact sheet. End AIDS Epidemics. 2020
    1. Kemp CG, Velloza J. Implementation of eHealth interventions across the HIV care cascade: a review of recent research. Current HIV/AIDS Rep. 2018;15(6):403–413. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tripathi A, Duffus WA, Kissinger P, Brown TJ, Gibson JJ, Mena LA. Delivering laboratory results by text message and e-mail: a survey of factors associated with conceptual acceptability among STD clinic attendees. Telemed e-Health. 2012;18(7):500–506. - PubMed
    1. Labacher L, Mitchell C. Talk or text to tell? How young adults in Canada and South Africa prefer to receive STI results, counseling, and treatment updates in a wireless world. J Health Commun. 2013;18(12):1465–1476. - PubMed

Publication types