Search

Ontology is essential for achieving health information and information technology application interoperability in the biomedical fields and beyond. Traditionally, ontology construction is carried out manually by human domain experts (HDE). Here, we explore an active learning approach to automatically identify candidate terms from publications, with manual verification later as a part of a deep learning model training and learning process. We introduce the overall architecture of the active learning pipeline and present some preliminary results. This work is a critical and complementary component in addition to manually building the ontology, especially during the long-term maintenance stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The realization of benefits from health information technology (HIT) implementation takes place in the long tail of implementation that must integrate technology, work practices and contextual factors. While formal health informatics education programs exist, they tend to be focused at the strategic management or specialized implementation level. HIT support at the local level often falls to clinical care staff that have little or no formal training in HIT implementation. This paper will expand on the term context-sensitive digital integrators (CSDI) as a role that could support local implementation. We discuss the CSDI role, including terminology, competencies and the role context sensitivity plays in implementation, and how CSDIs could be better supported and trained in different contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Nordic Countries are seen as forerunners in the field of digital health technologies and national implementation has been guided by sector specific strategies for many years. In the context of new European legislation such as the European Health Data Space (EHDS), a review of the existing strategies is indicated. The objective of this policy analysis is to assess and compare the scope, ambitions and extent of accountability in national-level digital health policies in the Nordic countries. The scope of the policies from the five countries were largely centred around a) empowering and activating citizens; b) a shift towards prevention and digital first; c) supporting health operations; d) doing the groundwork; e) making health data more available in research and innovation workflows and f) supporting health personnel. Finland comes out as the most ambitious country with the aim to transform their health system by means of digitalisation. Both Finland and Iceland work towards prevention and the digital first ambition due to large populations in rural areas. These two countries also present the most accountable policies, meaning that their policy documents are the most transparent as to how they arrived at the conclusions and how they are to evaluate the achievements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The quality of the digital healthcare systems relies on citizens' willingness to share their digital health data. This makes citizens’ use, perceptions, and attitudes towards digital healthcare systems pivotal. The study presented here examines Nordic citizens’ willingness to share digital health data with healthcare providers and for research purposes. A cross-sectional study design was applied to obtain answers from citizens in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The results are based on answers from 5078 citizens across the five countries. Results based on descriptive statistics indicate that the majority of Nordic citizens are willing to share health data that has clinical relevance with healthcare providers and for research purposes. The odds ratio analysis reveals that citizens’ odds of sharing health data decreases with age and increases with the level of education. Conclusively, this study shows that most Nordic citizens are willing to share their health data, influenced by age and level of education. Awareness of and efforts to support citizens who are unable or unwilling to actively use and engage with the digital healthcare system is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This protocol paper explores the initiative to build and implement a National Trial Overview to make clinical trials more accessible to patients and health professionals in Denmark. The paper address how a user-centered evaluation of the platform will be conducted and how the National Trial Overview can contribute to enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion of patients and health professionals, and make access to clinical trials more patient-centered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citizens' access to their online health information is pivotal. Therefore, this study examines citizens' access to their online health information across countries and healthcare settings. The study is based on a survey design targeting the 98 IMIA representatives of the national societies. Results indicate that Test results and Medications are the two types of online information that citizens in most cases have access to. Ten countries provide citizens access to all the different types of information included in the study. That relatively few countries provide citizens access to all the included types of online health information underscores the importance of continuous emphasis on accessibility and research within this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National eHealth portals for citizens are available in the five Nordic countries. This study describes and compares the Nordic citizen portals and identifies variations in content access and functionality. The findings suggest that availability of information and services depend on the organisation of the health system, the connection to national health information exchange platforms and incentives for providing data and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perceptions of errors associated with healthcare information technology (HIT) often depend on the context and position of the viewer. HIT vendors posit very different causes of errors than clinicians, implementation teams, or IT staff. Even within the same hospital, members of departments and services often implicate other departments. Organizations may attribute errors to external care partners that refer patients, such as nursing homes or outside clinics. Also, the various clinical roles within an organization (e.g., physicians, nurses, pharmacists) can conceptualize errors and their root causes differently. Overarching all these perceptual factors, the definitions, mechanisms, and incidence of HIT-related errors are remarkably conflictual. There is neither a universal standard for defining or counting these errors. This paper attempts to enumerate and clarify the issues related to differential perceptions of medical errors associated with HIT. It then suggests solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]