Action Opportunities to Pursue Responsible Digital Care for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Qualitative Study

Abstract

Background: Responsible digital care refers to any intentional systematic effort designed to increase the likelihood of a digital care technology developed through ethical decision-making, being socially responsible and aligned with the values and well-being of those impacted by it. Objective: We aimed to present examples of action opportunities for (1) designing “technology”; (2) shaping the “context” of use; and (3) adjusting the behavior of “users” to guide responsible digital care for people with intellectual disabilities. Methods: Three cases were considered: (1) design of a web application to support the preparation of meals for groups of people with intellectual disabilities, (2) implementation of an app to help people with intellectual disabilities regulate their stress independently, and (3) implementation of a social robot to stimulate interaction and physical activity among people with intellectual disabilities. Overall, 26 stakeholders participated in 3 multistakeholder workshops (case 1: 10/26, 38%; case 2: 10/26, 38%; case 3: 6/26, 23%) based on the “guidance ethics approach.” We identified stakeholders’ values based on bottom-up exploration of experienced and expected effects of using the technology, and we formulated action opportunities for these values in the specific context of use. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Results: Overall, 232 effects, 33 values, and 156 action opportunities were collected. General and case-specific themes were identified. Important stakeholder values included quality of care, autonomy, efficiency, health, enjoyment, reliability, and privacy. Both positive and negative effects could underlie stakeholders’ values and influence the development of action opportunities. Action opportunities comprised the following: (1) technology: development of the technology (eg, user experience and customization), technology input (eg, recipes for meals, intervention options for reducing stress, and activities), and technology output (eg, storage and use of data); (2) context: guidelines, training and support, policy or agreements, and adjusting the physical environment in which the technology is used; and (3) users: integrating the technology into daily care practice, by diminishing (eg, “letting go” to increase the autonomy of people with intellectual disabilities), retaining (eg, face-to-face contact), and adding (eg, evaluation moments) certain behaviors of care professionals. Conclusions: This is the first study to provide insight into responsible digital care for people with intellectual disabilities by means of bottom-up exploration of action opportunities to take account of stakeholders’ values in designing technology, shaping the context of use, and adjusting the behavior of users. Although part of the findings may be generalized, case-specific insights and a complementary top-down approach (eg, predefined ethical frameworks) are essential. The findings represent a part of an ethical discourse that requires follow-up to meet the dynamism of stakeholders’ values and further develop and implement action opportunities to achieve socially desirable, ethically acceptable, and sustainable digital care that improves the lives of people with intellectual disabilities.