Smart Contracts and Shared Platforms in Sustainable Health Care: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The benefits of smart contracts (SCs) for sustainable health care are a relatively recent topic that has gathered attention given its relationship with trust and the advantages of decentralization, immutability, and traceability introduced in health care. Nevertheless, more studies need to explore the role of SCs in this sector based on the frameworks propounded in the literature that reflect business logic that has been customized, automatized, and prioritized, as well as system trust. This study addressed this lacuna. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of SCs in health care based on reviewing the frameworks propounded in the literature. METHODS: A structured literature review was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) principles. One database-Web of Science (WoS)-was selected to avoid bias generated by database differences and data wrangling. A quantitative assessment of the studies based on machine learning and data reduction methodologies was complemented with a qualitative, in-depth, detailed review of the frameworks propounded in the literature. RESULTS: A total of 70 studies, which constituted 18.7% (70/374) of the studies on this subject, met the selection criteria and were analyzed. A multiple correspondence analysis-with 74.44% of the inertia-produced 3 factors describing the advances in the topic. Two of them referred to the leading roles of SCs: (1) health care process enhancement and (2) assurance of patients' privacy protection. The first role included 6 themes, and the second one included 3 themes. The third factor encompassed the technical features that improve system efficiency. The in-depth review of these 3 factors and the identification of stakeholders allowed us to characterize the system trust in health care SCs. We assessed the risk of coverage bias, and good percentages of overlap were obtained-66% (49/74) of PubMed articles were also in WoS, and 88.3% (181/205) of WoS articles also appeared in Scopus. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive review allows us to understand the relevance of SCs and the potentiality of their use in patient-centric health care that considers more than technical aspects. It also provides insights for further research based on specific stakeholders, locations, and behaviors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».