Ethical, Legal and Social Issues of Digital Phenotyping as a Future Solution for Present-Day Challenges: A Scoping Review

Digital phenotyping represents an avenue of consideration in patients' self-management. This scoping review aims to explore the trends in the body of literature on ethical, legal, and social challenges relevant to the implementation of digital phenotyping technologies in healthcare. The study followed the PRISMA-ScR methodology (Tricco et al. in Ann Int Med 169(7):467–473, 2018. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850). The review systematically identified relevant literature, characterised the discussed technology, explored its impacts and the proposed solutions to identified challenges. Overall, the literature, perhaps unsurprisingly, concentrates on technical rather than ethical, legal, and social perspectives, which limits understanding of the more complex cultural and social factors in which digital phenotyping technologies are embedded. ELS issues mostly concern privacy, security, consent, lack of regulation, and issues of adoptability, and seldom expand to more complex ethical issues. Trust was chosen as an umbrella theme of a continuum of major ELS and technical issues. Sustained critical analysis of digital phenotyping showed to be sparse and geographically exclusive. There is a continuum and overlap between ELS issues, suggesting the need for a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to each of the challenges posed by the various technologies of digital phenotyping. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11948-021-00354-1.

[1]  Bjørn Hofmann,et al.  Ethical Challenges with Welfare Technology: A Review of the Literature , 2012, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[2]  Paul Glasziou,et al.  Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[3]  Atsushi Araki,et al.  Reviewing the definition of “elderly” , 2006 .

[4]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Similarities and differences between genders in the usage of computer with different levels of technological complexity , 2020, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[5]  Natasha D. Schüll Data for life: Wearable technology and the design of self-care , 2016, BioSocieties.

[6]  C. Pagliari,et al.  Digital Participatory Surveillance and the Zika Crisis: Opportunities and Caveats , 2016, PLoS neglected tropical diseases.

[7]  Jiwon Oh,et al.  Titles versus titles and abstracts for initial screening of articles for systematic reviews , 2013, Clinical epidemiology.

[8]  Ronald Glasberg,et al.  Outside the Lines: Issues in Interdisciplinary Research. , 1997 .

[9]  Anders Albrechtslund,et al.  Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance , 2008, First Monday.

[10]  Deborah Lupton,et al.  Self-tracking, health and medicine , 2017 .

[11]  J. McGowan,et al.  PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation , 2018, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  Rüdiger Pryss,et al.  Mobile Crowdsensing in Healthcare Scenarios: Taxonomy, Conceptual Pillars, Smart Mobile Crowdsensing Services , 2019, Studies in Neuroscience, Psychology and Behavioral Economics.

[13]  M. Hotopf,et al.  Digital phenotyping, behavioral sensing, or personal sensing: names and transparency in the digital age , 2020, npj Digital Medicine.

[14]  Kostas Dimopoulos,et al.  Constructing social representations of science and technology: the role of metaphors in the press and the popular scientific magazines , 2004 .

[15]  Btihaj Ajana Communal self-tracking: Data philanthropy, solidarity and privacy , 2018 .

[16]  Jukka-Pekka Onnela,et al.  Passive data collection and use in healthcare: A systematic review of ethical issues , 2019, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[17]  James Tung,et al.  User Acceptance of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Mixed Method Study , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[18]  Tamar Sharon Self-Tracking for Health and the Quantified Self: Re-Articulating Autonomy, Solidarity, and Authenticity in an Age of Personalized Healthcare , 2017 .

[19]  Isaac Cooper,et al.  Ethical Issues in Biometrics , 2019, Science Insights.

[20]  B. Turner,et al.  The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory , 1997 .

[21]  John Torous,et al.  New Tools for New Research in Psychiatry: A Scalable and Customizable Platform to Empower Data Driven Smartphone Research , 2016, JMIR mental health.

[22]  S. Rauch,et al.  Harnessing Smartphone-Based Digital Phenotyping to Enhance Behavioral and Mental Health , 2016, Neuropsychopharmacology.

[23]  Guido Möllering,et al.  The Nature of Trust: From Georg Simmel to a Theory of Expectation, Interpretation and Suspension , 2001 .

[24]  Deborah Lupton The diverse domains of quantified selves: self-tracking modes and dataveillance , 2016 .

[25]  Muntazir Mehdi,et al.  Smart mobile crowdsensing for tinnitus research: student research abstract , 2019, SAC.

[26]  J. Law Actor-network theory and material semiotics , 2009 .

[27]  Hossam M. Hammady,et al.  Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[28]  M. Kruk,et al.  Assessing health system performance in developing countries: a review of the literature. , 2008, Health policy.