Integrated ontology-based approach with navigation and content representation for health care website design

2022 ◽  
Vol 128 ◽  
pp. 107119
Author(s):  
Te-Min Chang ◽  
Hao-Yun Kao ◽  
Jen-Her Wu ◽  
Kai-Wen Hsiao ◽  
Te-Fu Chan
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Website Design ◽  
Content Representation

scholarly journals Advice for Health Care Professionals and Users: An Evaluation of Websites for Perinatal Anxiety (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Moore ◽  
Virginia Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Website Design ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Website Quality ◽  
Perinatal Anxiety ◽  
Support Resources

BACKGROUND Many websites are available with information and resources for perinatal anxiety; however, there is limited research on the quality and content of these sites. OBJECTIVE This study aims to identify what sites are available on perinatal anxiety, identify any information and therapeutic advice given, and review its accuracy and website design. METHODS We conducted an evaluation of websites for perinatal anxiety. Eligible websites (N=50) were evaluated for accuracy of information, resources for mothers, website quality, and readability. RESULTS Information was often incomplete and focused on symptoms rather than risk factors or impact of untreated perinatal anxiety. Websites often had information on treatment (46/50, 92%), but much less on screening (19/50, 38%). Most sites provided at least some resources to support mothers (49/50, 98%), but active, guided support was infrequent (25/50, 50%). Website quality was extremely variable and mostly difficult to read (42/50, 84%). CONCLUSIONS This study recommends the top 4 websites on perinatal anxiety for health care professionals and users. There is a need for websites to be developed that provide accurate, evidence-based information that women can relate to with quality support resources. Furthermore, these sites should be easy to use and readable.

scholarly journals Advice for Health Care Professionals and Users: An Evaluation of Websites for Perinatal Anxiety

10.2196/11464 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. e11464
Author(s):  
Donna Moore ◽  
Virginia Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Website Design ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Website Quality ◽  
Perinatal Anxiety ◽  
Support Resources

Background Many websites are available with information and resources for perinatal anxiety; however, there is limited research on the quality and content of these sites. Objective This study aims to identify what sites are available on perinatal anxiety, identify any information and therapeutic advice given, and review its accuracy and website design. Methods We conducted an evaluation of websites for perinatal anxiety. Eligible websites (N=50) were evaluated for accuracy of information, resources for mothers, website quality, and readability. Results Information was often incomplete and focused on symptoms rather than risk factors or impact of untreated perinatal anxiety. Websites often had information on treatment (46/50, 92%), but much less on screening (19/50, 38%). Most sites provided at least some resources to support mothers (49/50, 98%), but active, guided support was infrequent (25/50, 50%). Website quality was extremely variable and mostly difficult to read (42/50, 84%). Conclusions This study recommends the top 4 websites on perinatal anxiety for health care professionals and users. There is a need for websites to be developed that provide accurate, evidence-based information that women can relate to with quality support resources. Furthermore, these sites should be easy to use and readable.

scholarly journals Tools to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerlinde Lenaerts ◽  
Geertruida E Bekkering ◽  
Martine Goossens ◽  
Leen De Coninck ◽  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Website Design ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Care Information ◽  
Website Interactivity

BACKGROUND User-friendly information at the point of care should be well structured, rapidly accessible, and comprehensive. Also, this information should be trustworthy, as it will be used by health care practitioners to practice evidence-based medicine. Therefore, a standard, validated tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care information resources is needed. OBJECTIVE This systematic review sought to search for tools to assess the trustworthiness of point-of-care resources and to describe and analyze the content of these tools. METHODS A systematic search was performed on three sources: (1) we searched online for initiatives that worked off of the trustworthiness of medical information; (2) we searched Medline (PubMed) until June 2019 for relevant literature; and (3) we scanned reference lists and lists of citing papers via Web of Science for each retrieved paper. We included all studies, reports, websites, or methodologies that reported on tools that assessed the trustworthiness of medical information for professionals. From the selected studies, we extracted information on the general characteristics of the tools. As no standard, risk-of-bias assessment instruments are available for these types of studies, we described how each tool was developed, including any assessments on reliability and validity. We analyzed the criteria used in the different tools and divided them into five categories: (1) author-related information; (2) evidence-based methodology; (3) website quality; (4) website design and usability; and (5) website interactivity. The percentage of tools in compliance with these categories and the different criteria were calculated. RESULTS Included in this review was a total of 17 tools, all published between 1997 and 2018. The tools were developed for different purposes, from a general quality assessment of medical information to very detailed analyses, all specifically for point-of-care resources. However, the development process of the tools was poorly described. Overall, seven tools had a scoring system implemented, two were assessed for reliability only, and two other tools were assessed for both validity and reliability. The content analysis showed that all the tools assessed criteria related to an evidence-based methodology: 82% of the tools assessed author-related information, 71% assessed criteria related to website quality, 71% assessed criteria related to website design and usability, and 47% of the tools assessed criteria related to website interactivity. There was significant variability in criteria used, as some were very detailed while others were more broadly defined. CONCLUSIONS The 17 included tools encompass a variety of items important for the assessment of the trustworthiness of point-of-care information. Overall, two tools were assessed for both reliability and validity, but they lacked some essential criteria for the assessment of the trustworthiness of medical information for use at the point-of-care. Currently, a standard, validated tool does not exist. The results of this review may contribute to the development of such an instrument, which may enhance the quality of point-of-care information in the long term.

scholarly journals Tools to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review

10.2196/15415 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. e15415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerlinde Lenaerts ◽  
Geertruida E Bekkering ◽  
Martine Goossens ◽  
Leen De Coninck ◽  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Website Design ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Care Information ◽  
Website Interactivity

Background User-friendly information at the point of care should be well structured, rapidly accessible, and comprehensive. Also, this information should be trustworthy, as it will be used by health care practitioners to practice evidence-based medicine. Therefore, a standard, validated tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care information resources is needed. Objective This systematic review sought to search for tools to assess the trustworthiness of point-of-care resources and to describe and analyze the content of these tools. Methods A systematic search was performed on three sources: (1) we searched online for initiatives that worked off of the trustworthiness of medical information; (2) we searched Medline (PubMed) until June 2019 for relevant literature; and (3) we scanned reference lists and lists of citing papers via Web of Science for each retrieved paper. We included all studies, reports, websites, or methodologies that reported on tools that assessed the trustworthiness of medical information for professionals. From the selected studies, we extracted information on the general characteristics of the tools. As no standard, risk-of-bias assessment instruments are available for these types of studies, we described how each tool was developed, including any assessments on reliability and validity. We analyzed the criteria used in the different tools and divided them into five categories: (1) author-related information; (2) evidence-based methodology; (3) website quality; (4) website design and usability; and (5) website interactivity. The percentage of tools in compliance with these categories and the different criteria were calculated. Results Included in this review was a total of 17 tools, all published between 1997 and 2018. The tools were developed for different purposes, from a general quality assessment of medical information to very detailed analyses, all specifically for point-of-care resources. However, the development process of the tools was poorly described. Overall, seven tools had a scoring system implemented, two were assessed for reliability only, and two other tools were assessed for both validity and reliability. The content analysis showed that all the tools assessed criteria related to an evidence-based methodology: 82% of the tools assessed author-related information, 71% assessed criteria related to website quality, 71% assessed criteria related to website design and usability, and 47% of the tools assessed criteria related to website interactivity. There was significant variability in criteria used, as some were very detailed while others were more broadly defined. Conclusions The 17 included tools encompass a variety of items important for the assessment of the trustworthiness of point-of-care information. Overall, two tools were assessed for both reliability and validity, but they lacked some essential criteria for the assessment of the trustworthiness of medical information for use at the point-of-care. Currently, a standard, validated tool does not exist. The results of this review may contribute to the development of such an instrument, which may enhance the quality of point-of-care information in the long term. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42019122565; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=122565

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-203
Author(s):  
Kendra Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Pressure Sores ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

A Tribute to the Late William J. Curran

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Legal Medicine ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Institute ◽  
University Professor

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.

Health care reform and oral medicine

1994 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
WT Williams
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Reform ◽  
Oral Medicine
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document