MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1935254682 · doi:10.1108/cgij-05-2015-0013

Addressing Public Health informatics patient privacy concerns

2015· article· en· W1935254682 on OpenAlex
David Birnbaum, Elizabeth M. Borycki, Bryant T. Karras, Elizabeth Denham, Paulette Lacroix

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Governance An International Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsIDELIX Software (Canada)Government of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth informaticsPublic relationsInformation privacyInternet privacyPublic health informaticsPublic healthInformation governanceHealth carePrivacy policyPersonally identifiable informationBusinessPolitical scienceHealth policyInformation systemHRHISMedicineComputer scienceLawNursingManagement information systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review stakeholder perspectives and provide a framework for improving governance in health data stewardship. Patients may wish to view their own lab results or clinical records, but others (notably academics, journalists and lawyers) tend to want scores of patient records in their search for patterns or trends. Public Health informatics capabilities are growing in scope and speed as clinical information systems, health information exchange networks and other potential database linkages enable more access to healthcare data. This change facilitates novel service improvements, but also raises new personal privacy protection issues. Design/methodology/approach – This paper summarizes a panel session discussion from the 2015 Information Technology and Communication in Health biennial international conference. The perspectives of health service research, journalism, Public Health informatics and privacy protection were represented. Findings – In North America, an expectation of personal privacy exists as a quasi-constitutional right. Individuals should be allowed to control the amount of information shared about them, and in particular the public expects that details of their personal healthcare data are protected. This is supported by laws, regulations and administrative structures; however, there are fundamental differences between the approaches taken in Canada and in the USA. In both countries, population and Public Health has wide powers to collect data and share it appropriately in order to accomplish a social good. A recent report issued by the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner, and a recent story issued by the Bloomberg News service, highlight ways in which laws and regulations have not kept pace with advances in technology. Changes are needed to enable population and Public Health agencies to protect confidential personal information while still being able to comply with legitimate requests for data by researchers, policy makers and the public at large. Originality/value – Similarities and differences in approach, gaps, current issues and recommendations of several countries were revealed in a conference session. Those concepts and the likelihood of ensuing legislative changes directly impact healthcare organizations’ patients and leadership.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.868
GPT teacher head0.683
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it