Quality and Safety in eHealth: The Need to Build the Evidence Base
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in the area of health technology safety has demonstrated that technology may both improve patient safety and introduce new types of technology-induced errors. Thus, there is a need to publish safety science literature to develop an evidence-based research base, on which we can continually develop new, safe technologies and improve patient safety. The aim of this viewpoint is to argue for the need to advance evidence-based research in health informatics, so that new technologies can be designed, developed, and implemented for their safety prior to their use in health care. This viewpoint offers a historical perspective on the development of health informatics and safety literature in the area of health technology. I argue for the need to conduct safety studies of technologies used by health professionals and consumers to develop an evidence base in this area. Ongoing research is necessary to improve the quality and safety of health technologies. Over the past several decades, we have seen health informatics emerge as a discipline, with growing research in the field examining the design, development, and implementation of different health technologies and new challenges such as those associated with the quality and safety of technology use. Future research will need to focus on how we can continually extend safety science in this area. There is a need to integrate evidence-based research into the design, development, and implementation of health technologies to improve their safety and reduce technology-induced errors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.282 | 0.518 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.053 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".