1,721,003 research outputs found
Erratum: Public health digitalization in Europe: EUPHA vision, action and role in digital public health (European Journal of Public Health (2019) DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz161)
No full textIn the original article, one of author Walter Ricciardi's affiliations (number 4) was incorrect. This has now been corrected in the online version of the article
Women, healthcare leadership and societal culture: a qualitative study [Corrigendum]
No full textKalaitzi S, Czabanowska K, Azzopardi-Muscat N, et al. J Healthc Leadersh. 2019;11:43–59. The authors have advised that the ORCID iD numbers were missing in the affiliations list for the following authors: Stavroula Kalaitzi ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2584-2023, Katarzyna Czabanowska ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3934-5589, and Elena Petelos ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8838-7470. Read the original articl
Public health digitalization in Europe
No full textBackground: As digitalization is progressively permeating all aspects of society, how can be it fruitfully employed to sustain the public health goals of quality, accessibility, efficiency and equity in health care and prevention? In this paper, we reflect on the potential of applying digital tools to public health and discuss some key challenges. Methods: We first define 'digitalization' in its broader sense, as well as applied to public health. We then build a conceptual framework where key public health domains are associated to available digital technologies in a matrix that help to identify digital features that bolster public health action. We also provide illustrative data and evidence on the application of digital solutions on selected public health areas. In the second part, we identify the strategic pillars for a successful European strategy for public health digitalization and we outline how the approach being pursued by the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) applies to digital health. Results: From a public health perspective, digitalization is being touted as providing several potential benefits and advantages, including support for the transition from cure to prevention, helping to put people and patients at the center of care delivery, supporting patient empowerment and making healthcare system more efficient, safer and cheaper. These benefits are enabled through the following features of digital technologies: (i) Personalization and precision; (ii) Automation; (iii) Prediction; (iv) Data analytics and (v) Interaction. Conclusion: A successful European strategy for public health digitalization should integrate the following pillars: political commitment, normative frameworks, technical infrastructure, targeted economic investments, education, research, monitoring and evaluation. EUPHA acknowledges digitalization is an asset for public health and is working both to promote the culture of "public health digitalization", as well as to enable its planning, implementation and evaluation at the research, practice and policy level
Does the use of personal electronic health records increase vaccine uptake? A systematic review
No full textBackground: Although Personal Electronic Health Records (PEHR) have been identified as innovative tools enabling the provision of patient-centered care and prevention, evidence on the impact of their use is scant. With PEHRs being more and more marketed as easily implementable and cost-effective instruments to provide people with direct control on their health, the question on whether their use might be associated with the priority to improve vaccine coverage arises. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines to retrieve, quantitatively pool and critically appraise the effectiveness of PEHR access on vaccine uptake. Analysis on PEHR effectiveness were carried out for the following comparison strata: i) PEHR access vs no intervention (standard care, no access to PEHR), ii) PEHR access only vs access to PEHR with additional features (e.g. health education materials, active reminders). Results: Of 3114 identified citations, 8 studies were included, the majority published in the US and before 2015; 62% were randomized trials, the rest having an observational study design. Evidence suggests a moderate positive impact of PEHR access in increasing vaccine uptake, with data available for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, diabetic patients and childhood immunization. Pooled data report the addition of digital communication features, i.e. the delivery of educational messages, reminders and availability of scheduling features might increase vaccine uptake, as compared to PEHR access alone. However, evidence is not conclusive. Conclusion: While immunization programs are struggling to achieve optimal coverage targets, it seems the potential of PEHRSs supporting informed adherence to vaccines recommendations is neither fully exploited nor explored. Which factors mediate the association between PEHRs access and vaccine uptake? Which PEHRs’ design and functional components can maximize their impact? On which target populations? Which PEHR models works better for high-risk populations? Our findings can only partially answer those questions and further experimental research is needed
Does the use of personal electronic health records increase vaccine uptake? A systematic review
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
