Search

Modern communication and information technologies are rapidly being deployed at health care institutions around the world. Although these technologies offer many benefits, ensuring data protection is a major concern, and implementation of robust data protection measures is essential. In this context, health care providers and medical care facilities must frequently make difficult decisions and compromises between the need to provide effective medical care and the need to ensure data security and patient privacy. In the present paper, we describe and discuss key issues related to data protection systems in the setting of cancer care hospitals in Europe. We provide real-life examples from two European countries—Poland and the Czech Republic—to illustrate data protection issues and the steps being taking to address these questions. More specifically, we discuss the legal framework surrounding data protection and technical aspects related to patient authentication and communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evolution of Patient-Generated Health Data (PGHD) represents a major shift in healthcare, fueled by technological progress. The advent of PGHD, with technologies such as wearable devices and home monitoring systems, extends data collection beyond clinical environments, enabling continuous monitoring and patient engagement in their health management. Despite the growing prevalence of PGHD, there is a lack of clear understanding among stakeholders about its meaning, along with concerns about data security, privacy, and accuracy. This article aims to thoroughly review and clarify PGHD by examining its origins, types, technological foundations, and the challenges it faces, especially in terms of privacy and security regulations. The review emphasizes the role of PGHD in transforming healthcare through patient-centric approaches, their understanding, and personalized care, while also exploring emerging technologies and addressing data privacy and security issues, offering a comprehensive perspective on the current state and future directions of PGHD. The methodology employed for this review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Rayyan, AI-Powered Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews. This approach ensures a systematic and comprehensive coverage of the available literature on PGHD, focusing on the various aspects outlined in the objective. The review encompassed 36 peer-reviewed articles from various esteemed publishers and databases, reflecting a diverse range of methodologies, including interviews, regular articles, review articles, and empirical studies to address three RQs exploratory, impact assessment, and solution-oriented questions related to PGHD. Additionally, to address the future-oriented fourth RQ for PGHD not covered in the above review, we have incorporated existing domain knowledge articles. This inclusion aims to provide answers encompassing both basic and advanced security measures for PGHD, thereby enhancing the depth and scope of our analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We applied implementation science frameworks to identify barriers and facilitators to veterans' acceptance of pharmacogenomic testing (PGx), which was made available as a part of clinical care at 25 VA medical centers. We conducted 30 min interviews with veterans who accepted (n = 14), declined (n = 9), or were contemplating (n = 8) PGx testing. Six team members coded one transcript from each participant group to develop the codebook and finalize definitions. Three team members coded the remaining 28 transcripts and met regularly with the larger team to reach a consensus. The coders generated a matrix of implementation constructs by testing status to identify the similarities and differences between accepters, decliners, and contemplators. All groups understood the PGx testing procedures and possible benefits. In the decision-making, accepters prioritized the potential health benefits of PGx testing, such as reducing side effects or the number of medications. In contrast, decliners prioritized the possibilities of data breach or the negative impact on healthcare insurance or Veterans Affairs benefits. Contemplators desired to speak to a provider to learn more before making a decision. Efforts to improve the clarity of data security and the impact on benefits may improve veterans' abilities to make more informed decisions about whether to undergo PGx testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]