An Ethical Framework for Automated, Wearable Cameras in Health Behavior Research

Abstract

Technologic advances mean automated, wearable cameras are now feasible for investigating health behaviors in a public health context. This paper attempts to identify and discuss the ethical implications of such research, in relation to existing guidelines for ethical research in traditional visual methodologies. Research using automated, wearable cameras can be very intrusive, generating unprecedented levels of image data, some of it potentially unflattering or unwanted. Participants and third parties they encounter may feel uncomfortable or that their privacy has been affected negatively. This paper attempts to formalize the protection of all according to best ethical principles through the development of an ethical framework. Respect for autonomy, through appropriate approaches to informed consent and adequate privacy and confidentiality controls, allows for ethical research, which has the potential to confer substantial benefits on the field of health behavior research.

Engaging research participants to inform the ethical conduct of mobile imaging, pervasive sensing, and location tracking research

“…While the majority of the participants reported a positive experience, it is important to note that the participants were volunteers who were not mandated to wear tracking devices and that persons who are mandated may not have a similar response. Findings support strategies proposed in the Kelly et al (2013) ethical framework, which emphasizes procedures to improve informed consent, protect privacy, manage data, and respect bystander rights when using a wearable camera. …”

“…The lack of relevant and responsive guidance creates challenges for institutional review boards (IRBs), researchers, and consumers alike. This paper provides evidence that supports the ethical framework recommended by Kelly et al (2013) for guiding the design and the ethical review of research involving pervasive visual imaging methods [12]. Moving forward, we advocate for researchers who are using MISST tools and methods to work closely with both research participants and their IRB to bridge the gap in our understanding of what constitutes ethical and responsible research practices.…”

“…The researchers were told they could conduct the study; however, only if the wearable camera was removed from the study protocol [9]. Around this same time, the iWatch lead investigator and colleagues were developing a framework to guide the ethical use of automated, wearable cameras in behavioral research in response to concerns noted by IRBs (i.e., documenting illegal or private moments) [12]. This framework (see Table 1 1 ) identifies practices that align with the ethical principles found in the Belmont Report including autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence with attention paid to both the research participant and bystanders [11,12].…”

“…Specifically, we wanted to obtain a first-hand accounting of study participant experiences to identify whether considerations recommended by the Kelly et al (2013) ethical framework were useful. …”

“…The ethical framework recommends that researchers Bprovide participants with an explanation about the study should someone inquire about the device^ [12]. The iWatch study protocol was to give each participant a small card with a brief study description that they could either read or give it to the interested party.…”