MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159302288 · doi:10.3109/17538157.2012.735732

Managing information and knowledge within maternity services: Privacy and consent issues

2013· article· en· W2159302288 on OpenAlexaff
Vikraman Baskaran, Kim Davis, Rajeev K. Bali, R.N.G. Naguib, Nilmini Wickramasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueInformatics for Health and Social Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyPrivacy policyInformation privacyInformed consentMaternity careKnowledge managementComputer scienceMedicineHealth carePolitical scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Electronic Patient Records have improved vastly the quality and efficiency of care delivered. However, the formation of single demographic database and the ease of electronic information sharing give rise to many concerns including issues of consent, by whom and how data are accessed and used. This paper examines the organizational and socio-technical issues related to privacy, confidentiality and security when employing electronic records within a maternity service hospital in England. METHODS: A preliminary questionnaire was administered (n = 52), in total, 24 responses were received. Sixteen responses were from personnel in the information technology department, 5 from health information department and 3 from midwifery managers. This was followed by a semi-structured interview with representatives from the clinical and technological side. RESULTS: A number of issues related to information governance (IG) have been identified, especially breaches on sharing personal information without consent from the patients have been identified as one immediate challenge that needs to be fixed. CONCLUSION: There is an immediate need for more robust, realistic, built-in accountability both locally and nationally on data sharing. A culture of ownership and strict adherence to IG principles is paramount. Focused training in the area of data, information and knowledge sharing will bring in a balance of legitimate usage against the individual's rights to confidentiality and privacy.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformatics for Health and Social CareSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207