Research Appraisals
Evidence-based critical appraisals of the latest medical research, systematically evaluated using Oxford CEBM methodology.
Showing 2 appraisals
JMIR human factors
Video-Algorithmic Patient Monitoring in Mental Health Inpatient Settings: Qualitative Study of Patient or Consumer, Clinician, and Vendor Perspectives
BACKGROUND: Video-algorithmic patient monitoring (VAPM) combines remote, noncontact sensors and algorithmic analysis and is increasingly trialed in acute psychiatric and other care settings. While promoted for improving safety and reducing risk, it raises ethical concerns regarding safety, privacy and surveillance. Little is known about how those encountering VAPM in mental health care contexts anticipate its use and potential impacts, including where it has not yet been implemented. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the views of patients or mental health consumers, specialized mental health nurses and nurse academics, hospital managers, and technology vendors regarding the appropriateness and anticipated implications of VAPM in mental health inpatient care. METHODS: This qualitative study identified key stakeholders in Australia via networking techniques for participation in a deliberative workshop. A deliberative workshop was held, and the workshop discussion was audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed, consistent with methods in health technology research, which enable exploration of different viewpoints, including convergences and divergences across stakeholder groups. RESULTS: In total, 16 stakeholders participated, exploring themes concerning (1) contestation over the rationale for VAPM in mental health settings, (2) VAPM reshaping care and relationships, (3) perceived harms of VAPM, (4) perceived observational support for safety and reduced disruption, (5) serious privacy implications of VAPM, (6) the need for appropriate governance, and (7) the potential for VAPM to transform, not augment, service delivery. General views differed across groups. Patients or service users expressed concerns about privacy, coercion, and the potential to intensify stigma. Mental health nurses were cautious but interested in possible benefits for safety and suicide prevention. Hospital managers and technology vendors largely emphasized safety gains. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the anticipated risks of VAPM are primarily experienced subjectively, as infringements on privacy, dignity, and trust, while purported benefits remain largely untested and unquantified. From a utilitarian perspective, direct comparison is therefore difficult-the risks are set out in the anticipated experiences of those with lived experience, and the benefits remain hypothetical. From this view, robust, independent evidence of real-world outcomes is required. Yet, for some participants, the very premise of such calculation was rejected, with privacy, dignity, and trust regarded as nonnegotiable, rather than items for trade-off. If VAPM is to be pursued at all, it should proceed only with extreme caution, with transparent evidence of outcomes, and with meaningful participation from those whose lives and care are most directly impacted.
22 July 2026
Read appraisal →Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM
Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS
The increasing integration of artificial intelligence in clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS) has fueled expectations of more personalized and effective diagnostics and therapies. By incorporating machine learning methods, AI-CDSS promise enhanced predictive accuracy, improved stratification, and innovative individualized care. However, this technological optimism is accompanied by complex ethical challenges, including issues of explainability, trust, autonomy, and data security. At the core of these debates lies the question of responsibility, which involves both its attribution and diffusion, as well as the underlying normative standards guiding moral action. In the context of healthcare practice, responsibility is further complicated by moral diversity-the coexistence of varying moral values, cultural beliefs, and ethical frameworks among healthcare professionals, patients, and institutional stakeholders. This plurality challenges the establishment of a unified normative standard necessary for ethically sound responsibility attribution. This paper offers an analysis of moral diversity and AI-CDSS as a challenge for responsibility in healthcare environments. Using a relational concept of responsibility the study examines key areas in which moral diversity affects responsibility in AI-mediated decision-making. This includes algorithmic bias, healthcare professional and patient interaction and the role of patients. Through these examples, the paper explains how different normative standards intensify ethical complexity in AI-supported clinical contexts. It argues that greater ethical sensitivity to moral diversity is essential-both in the development of AI-CDSS and in their application within morally value-laden healthcare situations.
4 July 2026
Read appraisal →