How does national culture affect citizens’ rights of access to personal health information and informed consent?

Cockcroft, Sophie; Sandhu, Neelam; Norris, A. C.

doi:10.1177/1460458209337444

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The continuing analyses and data gathering will be used to develop an e-consent model to meet the needs of people in New Zealand and thus realize the potential benefi ts of electronically sharing personal health information. The importance of access to personal health information is explored further by Cockcroft et al [7], who report a quantitative study examining legislation on informed consent and the right to access health information across 19 countries. The paper highlights the importance of legislation for patient consent at a national level in balancing the potential benefi ts of sharing personal health information from electronic records against the risks of sensitive data being accessed, transferred or exchanged inappropriately.…”

Section: ••••• Health Informatics Journal 15 (3)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Special Issue Editorial

Bath

2009

Health Informatics J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information Management', and was developed to encourage researchers and practitioners working with ICTs in the health sector to consider the overlap between health informatics and health information management [1]. An important feature of the ISHIMR conferences is the opportunity for all delegates to participate in discussion on issues of interest in the conference sessions, as well as in the intervals and social sessions. This special issue contains eight of the best papers from the conference, as reviewed by the ISHIMR Programme Committee.The papers were selected for their high quality and present an interesting cross-section of articles not only on developments within health informatics and health information management, but also on how these can contribute to change in the healthcare sector. The selected papers are from a range of countries, and also document research collaborations across countries. Two themes emerge from these papers: the importance of user-centred design in developing information systems, and the need to consider the views and rights of users when developing strategies for the implementation of ICTs in health.The fi rst paper, by Rabiei et al. [2], describes a qualitative study evaluating the impact of the Choose and Book system that has been developed under the National Programme for IT (NPfIT) in the UK. The Choose and Book system is an example of how ICTs can facilitate patients' access to healthcare services, improve patient choice and, hopefully, improve patient health and wellbeing. The paper identifi es the need to ensure new information systems have benefi ts for clinical staff and do not increase their workload, and emphasizes 164 ••••• Health Informatics Journal 15 (3)the importance of taking into account the views of healthcare professionals in developing new systems. The second paper, by Viitanen [3], was awarded the ISHIMR 2009 Best Student Paper award, and describes another qualitative study examining clinicians' perspectives, this time on the use of typing, cassette dictation, digital dictation and voice-recognition dictation for clinical documentation in a hospital in Finland. The paper identifi es specifi c user requirements for dictation, provides an evaluation of the dictation procedures in use and emphasizes the need to use user-centred methodologies in developing information systems in healthcare.Two papers [4, 5] compare the use of paper-based and electronic-based health records by staff in two quite different hospital settings. Raptis et al. [4] report a quantitative study to compare the quality of information transfer in paper-based and electronic-based medical handover in an acute care tertiary hospital. The study showed that using electronic records can ensure that complete patient information is transferred during handover and that information is instantly accessible via computers connected to the hospital intranet. Raptis was awarded the Best Paper award for ISHIMR 2009 for his work. Ayatollahi et al.[5] describe a study to compare the perspectives of healthc...

show abstract

Section: ••••• Health Informatics Journal 15 (3)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Special Issue Editorial

Bath

2009

Health Informatics J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“Doctor, Why Didn’t You Adopt My Baby?” Observant Participation, Care, and the Simultaneous Practice of Medicine and Anthropology

Sufrin

2015

Cult Med Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical anthropology has long appreciated the clinical encounter as a rich source of data and a key site for critical inquiry. It is no surprise, then, that a number of physician-anthropologists have used their clinical insights to make important contributions to the field. How does this duality challenge and enhance the moral practice and ethics of care inherent both to ethnography and to medicine? How do bureaucratic and professional obligations of HIPAA and the IRB intersect with aspirations of anthropology to understand human experience and of medicine to heal with compassion? In this paper, I describe my simultaneous fieldwork and clinical practice at an urban women's jail in the United States. In this setting, being a physician facilitates privileged access to people and spaces within, garners easy trust, and enables an insider perspective more akin to observant participation than participant observation. Through experiences of delivering the infants of incarcerated pregnant women and of being with the mothers as they navigate drug addiction, child custody battles, and re-incarceration, the roles of doctor and anthropologist become mutually constitutive and transformative. Moreover, the dual practice reveals congruities and cracks in each discipline's ethics of care. Being an anthropologist among informants who may have been patients reworks expectations of care and necessitates ethical practice informed by the dual roles.

show abstract

Assessing the Digital Advancement of Public Health Systems Using Indicators Published in Gray Literature: Narrative Review

Maaß,

Badino,

Iyamu

et al. 2024

JMIR Public Health Surveill

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Revealing the full potential of digital public health (DiPH) systems requires a wide-ranging tool to assess their maturity and readiness for emerging technologies. Although a variety of indices exist to assess digital health systems, questions arise about the inclusion of indicators of information and communications technology maturity and readiness, digital (health) literacy, and interest in DiPH tools by the society and workforce, as well as the maturity of the legal framework and the readiness of digitalized health systems. Existing tools frequently target one of these domains while overlooking the others. In addition, no review has yet holistically investigated the available national DiPH system maturity and readiness indicators using a multidisciplinary lens. Objective We used a narrative review to map the landscape of DiPH system maturity and readiness indicators published in the gray literature. Methods As original indicators were not published in scientific databases, we applied predefined search strings to the DuckDuckGo and Google search engines for 11 countries from all continents that had reached level 4 of 5 in the latest Global Digital Health Monitor evaluation. In addition, we searched the literature published by 19 international organizations for maturity and readiness indicators concerning DiPH. Results Of the 1484 identified references, 137 were included, and they yielded 15,806 indicators. We deemed 286 indicators from 90 references relevant for DiPH system maturity and readiness assessments. The majority of these indicators (133/286, 46.5%) had legal relevance (targeting big data and artificial intelligence regulation, cybersecurity, national DiPH strategies, or health data governance), and the smallest number of indicators (37/286, 12.9%) were related to social domains (focusing on internet use and access, digital literacy and digital health literacy, or the use of DiPH tools, smartphones, and computers). Another 14.3% (41/286) of indicators analyzed the information and communications technology infrastructure (such as workforce, electricity, internet, and smartphone availability or interoperability standards). The remaining 26.2% (75/286) of indicators described the degree to which DiPH was applied (including health data architecture, storage, and access; the implementation of DiPH interventions; or the existence of interventions promoting health literacy and digital inclusion). Conclusions Our work is the first to conduct a multidisciplinary analysis of the gray literature on DiPH maturity and readiness assessments. Although new methods for systematically researching gray literature are needed, our study holds the potential to develop more comprehensive tools for DiPH system assessments. We contributed toward a more holistic understanding of DiPH. Further examination is required to analyze the suitability and applicability of all identified indicators in diverse health care settings. By developing a standardized method to assess DiPH system maturity and readiness, we aim to foster informed decision-making among health care planners and practitioners to improve resource distribution and continue to drive innovation in health care delivery.

show abstract

How does national culture affect citizens’ rights of access to personal health information and informed consent?

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Special Issue Editorial

Special Issue Editorial

“Doctor, Why Didn’t You Adopt My Baby?” Observant Participation, Care, and the Simultaneous Practice of Medicine and Anthropology

Assessing the Digital Advancement of Public Health Systems Using Indicators Published in Gray Literature: Narrative Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About