Search

Our study addresses two main questions: First, what types of alliances do firms tend to create when combining different kinds of resources? Second, what governance mechanisms do firms set up to coordinate and protect resources when they use them for different alliances? We examine 227 alliances between competitors in Asia, North America, and Europe. We first identify two types of alliances: scale alliances in which the partner firms contribute similar resources, and link alliances in which the partners contribute complementary resources. We find that firms contributing R&D and production resources tend to form scale alliances, while firms contributing marketing resources tend to enter into link alliances. We also find that firms are more likely to choose stronger protection mechanisms for link alliances, which create greater appropriation risks, while they tend to seek higher levels of coordination in scale alliances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is a real crisis that has exposed the unpreparedness of many healthcare systems worldwide. Several underlying health conditions have been identified as risk factors, including sickle cell disease, a chronic illness with various complications that can increase the risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Our study aimed to investigate the profile of sickle cell patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and explore any potential relationship between these two conditions. We analyzed data from 11 sickle cell patients who contracted COVID-19 between June and December 2020 and were treated at the CRLD (Center for Sickle Cell Disease and Research). The patients' COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed using the (Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction) RT-PCR technique on nasopharyngeal swab samples and/or based on clinical and radiological findings, including CT scans. The patients consisted of 7 males and 4 females, with a mean age of 40 ± 12 years. The sickle cell phenotypes observed were SC (45.4%), SS (36.37%), and Sβ± thalassemia (18.2%). During the COVID-19 infection, we observed a slight increase in white blood cell and platelet counts, but a decrease in mean hemoglobin levels and red blood cells. Only 3 out of 11 patients (28%) had a fever at the time of diagnosis. Three patients required red blood cell transfusions due to severe anemia, and 7 out of 11 patients (63.6%) were hospitalized, with one patient admitted to the intensive care unit due to pulmonary embolism. All patients recovered from COVID-19.

Introduction: Tele-expertise in dermatology represents an opportunity to change medical practice in response to the need for cost savings in the health sector. The aim of this study was to evaluate the medical activities of the pilot phase of the tele-expertise project in Togo., Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted in October 2020 on the 20 sites of the pilot phase. This evaluation consisted of a literature review and analysis of data posted on the tele-expertise platform., Results: A total of 738 (10.8%) of the 6810 dermatological consultations were posted on the tele-expertise platform. Of the 738 cases, the dermatologist’s expertise did not allow a diagnosis to be made in 119 cases (16.1%). This expertise confirmed the single clinical hypothesis proposed by the health worker in 275 cases (37.3%) and allowed a diagnosis to be made among several clinical hypotheses in 30 cases (4.1%). On the contrary, the dermatologist’s diagnosis was not included in the health worker’s hypotheses in 201 cases (27.2%), and no clinical hypothesis was formulated in 113 cases (15.3%). The concordance between the clinical hypothesis proposed by the health worker and the diagnosis of the dermatologist was 48.8%. Regarding the acceptability of the tele-expertise, only one refusal was recorded. All patients were very satisfied with this practice., Conclusions: The results show the feasibility and acceptability of tele-expertise by health care personnel and patients. The diagnostic concordance of 48.8% shows the relative efficiency of task delegation.

Background: Implementation of digital health technologies has grown rapidly, but many remain limited to pilot studies due to challenges, such as a lack of evidence or barriers to implementation. Overcoming these challenges requires learning from previous implementations and systematically documenting implementation processes to better understand the real-world impact of a technology and identify effective strategies for future implementation., Objective: A group of global experts, facilitated by the Geneva Digital Health Hub, developed the Guidelines and Checklist for the Reporting on Digital Health Implementations (iCHECK-DH, pronounced "I checked") to improve the completeness of reporting on digital health implementations., Methods: A guideline development group was convened to define key considerations and criteria for reporting on digital health implementations. To ensure the practicality and effectiveness of the checklist, it was pilot-tested by applying it to several real-world digital health implementations, and adjustments were made based on the feedback received. The guiding principle for the development of iCHECK-DH was to identify the minimum set of information needed to comprehensively define a digital health implementation, to support the identification of key factors for success and failure, and to enable others to replicate it in different settings., Results: The result was a 20-item checklist with detailed explanations and examples in this paper. The authors anticipate that widespread adoption will standardize the quality of reporting and, indirectly, improve implementation standards and best practices., Conclusions: Guidelines for reporting on digital health implementations are important to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of reported information. This allows for meaningful comparison and evaluation of results, transparency, and accountability and informs stakeholder decision-making. i-CHECK-DH facilitates standardization of the way information is collected and reported, improving systematic documentation and knowledge transfer that can lead to the development of more effective digital health interventions and better health outcomes., (©Caroline Perrin Franck, Awa Babington-Ashaye, Damien Dietrich, Georges Bediang, Philippe Veltsos, Pramendra Prasad Gupta, Claudia Juech, Rigveda Kadam, Maxime Collin, Lucy Setian, Jordi Serrano Pons, S Yunkap Kwankam, Béatrice Garrette, Solenne Barbe, Cheick Oumar Bagayoko, Garrett Mehl, Christian Lovis, Antoine Geissbuhler. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 10.05.2023.)