Ethical issues in donation-based prosocial interventions for health: a scoping review
6 affiliations
- 1Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA
- 2Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 130 Mason Farm Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA
- 3College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA
- 4School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA
- 5Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, New York, NY USA
- 6Berman Institute of Bioethics and Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, USA
Abstract
Background: Donation-based prosocial interventions for health, such as monetary donations for diagnostic tests, aim to encourage voluntary actions that benefit others while fostering public participation to promote health. These interventions are increasingly used in public health, but the associated ethical issues have not been comprehensively described.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework to synthesize bioethics and public health literature on the ethical issues encountered with donation-based prosocial interventions for health. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, NIH Reporter, and ClinicalTrials.gov for empirical qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Two independent reviewers extracted data and coded data from each study according to a codebook. Categories of similar codes were analyzed to name cross-cutting issues across the included studies.
Results: The search identified 2,585 citations; 34 publications were included in our review. The publications described studies involving donations of blood, organs, biospecimens, data, and money. Most studies (32/34) were conducted in high-income countries and used observational designs (31/34). We identified three broad categories of benefits associated with donation-based interventions: health (physical and psychological), social (generosity, kindness, and community cohesion), and economic (improving welfare). We also identified several problematic ethical concerns at different levels (donor, recipient, provider, and system), such as undue pressure, privacy concerns, and inaccurate information. To mitigate these concerns, the literature discussed strengthening informed consent, ensuring confidentiality, building public trust, and ensuring appropriate stewardship of donations. We found that most studies did not empirically measure adverse consequences associated with donation-based prosocial interventions.
Conclusions: Donation-based prosocial interventions offer several health, social, and economic benefits. However, it is essential to consider the potential ethical concerns that may arise in their design and dissemination. Further research is needed to evaluate the success of mitigation strategies for addressing these concerns and thereby enhance the overall benefits of prosocial interventions.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01559-4.
Related
- AI-enabled and comparator digital interventions for adolescent mental health (2020–2025): early detection, human–AI collaboration, and ethical governance—a PRISMA-ScR scoping review
- Scoring Rubric to Assess Ethical Issues in Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools
- A scoping review of the present condition of organ donation among Chinese citizens and its influencing factors
- A scoping review of psychosocial functioning in young people with personality pathology: current evidence and methodological issues
- Retrieval-augmented generation in medicine: A scoping review of technical implementations, clinical applications, and ethical considerations
BibTeX
@article{hlatshwako2026ethical,
title = {{Ethical issues in donation-based prosocial interventions for health: a scoping review}},
author = {Takhona G. Hlatshwako and Delaney Santre and Suzanne Day and Dorian Ho and Weiming Tang and Jeremy Sugarman and Joseph D. Tucker},
journal = {BMC Medical Ethics},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s12910-026-01559-4},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01559-4},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Ethical issues in donation-based prosocial interventions for health: a scoping review
AU - Takhona G. Hlatshwako
AU - Delaney Santre
AU - Suzanne Day
AU - Dorian Ho
AU - Weiming Tang
AU - Jeremy Sugarman
AU - Joseph D. Tucker
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/22
JO - BMC Medical Ethics
DO - 10.1186/s12910-026-01559-4
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01559-4
AB - Background: Donation-based prosocial interventions for health, such as monetary donations for diagnostic tests, aim to encourage voluntary actions that benefit others while fostering public participation to promote health. These interventions are increasingly used in public health, but the associated ethical issues have not been comprehensively described. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework to synthesize bioethics and public health literature on the ethical issues encountered with donation-based prosocial interventions for health. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, NIH Reporter, and ClinicalTrials.gov for empirical qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Two independent reviewers extracted data and coded data from each study according to a codebook. Categories of similar codes were analyzed to name cross-cutting issues across the included studies. Results: The search identified 2,585 citations; 34 publications were included in our review. The publications described studies involving donations of blood, organs, biospecimens, data, and money. Most studies (32/34) were conducted in high-income countries and used observational designs (31/34). We identified three broad categories of benefits associated with donation-based interventions: health (physical and psychological), social (generosity, kindness, and community cohesion), and economic (improving welfare). We also identified several problematic ethical concerns at different levels (donor, recipient, provider, and system), such as undue pressure, privacy concerns, and inaccurate information. To mitigate these concerns, the literature discussed strengthening informed consent, ensuring confidentiality, building public trust, and ensuring appropriate stewardship of donations. We found that most studies did not empirically measure adverse consequences associated with donation-based prosocial interventions. Conclusions: Donation-based prosocial interventions offer several health, social, and economic benefits. However, it is essential to consider the potential ethical concerns that may arise in their design and dissemination. Further research is needed to evaluate the success of mitigation strategies for addressing these concerns and thereby enhance the overall benefits of prosocial interventions. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01559-4.
SN - 1472-6939
ER -