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
. 2024 Feb 28:11:e48147.
doi: 10.2196/48147.

Action Opportunities to Pursue Responsible Digital Care for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Qualitative Study

Affiliations

Action Opportunities to Pursue Responsible Digital Care for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Qualitative Study

Nienke M Siebelink et al. JMIR Ment Health. .

Abstract

Background: Responsible digital care refers to any intentional systematic effort designed to increase the likelihood of a digital care technology developed through ethical decision-making, being socially responsible and aligned with the values and well-being of those impacted by it.

Objective: We aimed to present examples of action opportunities for (1) designing "technology"; (2) shaping the "context" of use; and (3) adjusting the behavior of "users" to guide responsible digital care for people with intellectual disabilities.

Methods: Three cases were considered: (1) design of a web application to support the preparation of meals for groups of people with intellectual disabilities, (2) implementation of an app to help people with intellectual disabilities regulate their stress independently, and (3) implementation of a social robot to stimulate interaction and physical activity among people with intellectual disabilities. Overall, 26 stakeholders participated in 3 multistakeholder workshops (case 1: 10/26, 38%; case 2: 10/26, 38%; case 3: 6/26, 23%) based on the "guidance ethics approach." We identified stakeholders' values based on bottom-up exploration of experienced and expected effects of using the technology, and we formulated action opportunities for these values in the specific context of use. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

Results: Overall, 232 effects, 33 values, and 156 action opportunities were collected. General and case-specific themes were identified. Important stakeholder values included quality of care, autonomy, efficiency, health, enjoyment, reliability, and privacy. Both positive and negative effects could underlie stakeholders' values and influence the development of action opportunities. Action opportunities comprised the following: (1) technology: development of the technology (eg, user experience and customization), technology input (eg, recipes for meals, intervention options for reducing stress, and activities), and technology output (eg, storage and use of data); (2) context: guidelines, training and support, policy or agreements, and adjusting the physical environment in which the technology is used; and (3) users: integrating the technology into daily care practice, by diminishing (eg, "letting go" to increase the autonomy of people with intellectual disabilities), retaining (eg, face-to-face contact), and adding (eg, evaluation moments) certain behaviors of care professionals.

Conclusions: This is the first study to provide insight into responsible digital care for people with intellectual disabilities by means of bottom-up exploration of action opportunities to take account of stakeholders' values in designing technology, shaping the context of use, and adjusting the behavior of users. Although part of the findings may be generalized, case-specific insights and a complementary top-down approach (eg, predefined ethical frameworks) are essential. The findings represent a part of an ethical discourse that requires follow-up to meet the dynamism of stakeholders' values and further develop and implement action opportunities to achieve socially desirable, ethically acceptable, and sustainable digital care that improves the lives of people with intellectual disabilities.

Keywords: digital care; digital technology; ethics; intellectual disability; value-based health care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Outline of the guidance ethics approach (adapted from Verbeek and Tijink 2020 [21], which is published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License [33]).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Integraal zorg akkoord: samen werken aan gezonde zorg. Rijksoverheid. 2022. Sep, [2024-02-21]. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2022/09/16/integraal-z... .
    1. Study on health data, digital health and artificial intelligence in healthcare. Publications Office of the European Union. 2022. [2024-02-21]. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/179e7382-b564-1... .
    1. Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. World Health Organization. 2021. Aug 18, [2024-02-21]. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020924 .
    1. The Lancet Digital Health A digital (r)evolution: introducing The Lancet Digital Health. Lancet Digit Health. 2019 May;1(1):e1. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30010-X. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2589-7500(19)30010-X S2589-7500(19)30010-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sarri G, Freitag A, Szegvari B, Mountian I, Brixner D, Bertelsen N, Kaló Z, Upadhyaya S. The role of patient experience in the value assessment of complex technologies - do HTA bodies need to reconsider how value is assessed? Health Policy. 2021 May;125(5):593–601. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.03.006. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168-8510(21)00077-4 S0168-8510(21)00077-4 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources