To Obtain Informed Consent or Not to Obtain Informed Consent? Drones for Health Programs in the Grey Zone between Research and Public Health
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drones are increasingly being introduced to support healthcare delivery around the world. Most Drones for Health projects are currently in the pilot phase, where frontline staff are testing the feasibility of implementing drones into their healthcare system. Many of these projects are happening in remote localities where populations have been historically under-served within national healthcare systems. Currently, there exists limited drone-specific guidance on best practices for engaging individuals in decision-making about drone use in their communities. Towards supporting the development of such guidance, this paper focuses on the issue of obtaining community and individual consent for implementing Drones for Health projects. This paper is based on original qualitative research involving semi-structured interviews (N = 16) with program managers and implementation staff hired to work on health-related projects using drone technologies. In this paper, we introduce a scenario described by one participant to highlight the ethical and practical challenges associated with the implementation and use of drones for health-related purposes. We explore the ethical and practical complexities of obtaining informed consent from individuals who reside in communities where Drones for Health projects are implemented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it