↓ Skip to main content

Is there a duty to participate in digital epidemiology?

Overview of attention for article published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 109)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
61 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is there a duty to participate in digital epidemiology?
Published in
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40504-018-0074-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brent Mittelstadt, Justus Benzler, Lukas Engelmann, Barbara Prainsack, Effy Vayena

Abstract

This paper poses the question of whether people have a duty to participate in digital epidemiology. While an implied duty to participate has been argued for in relation to biomedical research in general, digital epidemiology involves processing of non-medical, granular and proprietary data types that pose different risks to participants. We first describe traditional justifications for epidemiology that imply a duty to participate for the general public, which take account of the immediacy and plausibility of threats, and the identifiability of data. We then consider how these justifications translate to digital epidemiology, understood as an evolution of traditional epidemiology that includes personal and proprietary digital data alongside formal medical datasets. We consider the risks imposed by re-purposing such data for digital epidemiology and propose eight justificatory conditions that should be met in justifying a duty to participate for specific digital epidemiological studies. The conditions are then applied to three hypothetical cases involving usage of social media data for epidemiological purposes. We conclude with a list of questions to be considered in public negotiations of digital epidemiology, including the application of a duty to participate to third-party data controllers, and the important distinction between moral and legal obligations to participate in research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 6 7%
Lecturer 5 6%
Other 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 29 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 13%
Computer Science 9 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 31 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
#776,030
of 24,998,746 outputs
Outputs from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#10
of 109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,317
of 333,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,998,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 333,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.