MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799901954 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1641195

Balancing Health Information Exchange and Privacy Governance from a Patient-Centred Connected Health and Telehealth Perspective

2018· article· en· W2799901954 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Kuziemsky, Shashi Bhushan Gogia, Mowafa Househ, Carolyn Petersen, Arindam Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueYearbook of Medical Informatics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthHealth careInternet privacyBusinessInformation privacyPerspective (graphical)TelemedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Connected healthcare is an essential part of patient-centred care delivery. Technology such as telehealth is a critical part of connected healthcare. However, exchanging health information brings the risk of privacy issues. To better manage privacy risks we first need to understand the different patterns of patient-centred care in order to tailor solutions to address privacy risks. METHODS: Drawing upon published literature, we develop a business model to enable patient-centred care via telehealth. The model identifies three patient-centred connected health patterns. We then use the patterns to analyse potential privacy risks and possible solutions from different types of telehealth delivery. RESULTS: Connected healthcare raises the risk of unwarranted access to health data and related invasion of privacy. However, the risk and extent of privacy issues differ according to the pattern of patient-centred care delivery and the type of particular challenge as they enable the highest degree of connectivity and thus the greatest potential for privacy breaches. CONCLUSION: Privacy issues are a major concern in telehealth systems and patients, providers, and administrators need to be aware of these privacy issues and have guidance on how to manage them. This paper integrates patient-centred connected health care, telehealth, and privacy risks to provide an understanding of how risks vary across different patterns of patient-centred connected health and different types of telehealth delivery.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.023
Scholarly communication0.0260.022
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0070.007
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYearbook of Medical InformaticsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207