Yearbook of medical informatics最新文献

Objective: Planning reliable long-term planning actions to handle disruptive events requires a timely development of technological infrastructures, as well as the set-up of focused strategies for emergency management. The paper aims to highlight the needs for standardization, integration, and interoperability between Accident & Emergency Informatics (A&EI) and One Digital Health (ODH), as fields capable of dealing with peculiar dynamics for a technology-boosted management of emergencies under an overarching One Health panorama.

Methods: An integrative analysis of the literature was conducted to draw attention to specific foci on the correlation between ODH and A&EI, in particular: (i) the management of disruptive events from private smart spaces to diseases spreading, and (ii) the concepts of (health-related) quality of life and well-being.

Results: A digitally-focused management of emergency events that tackles the inextricable interconnectedness between humans, animals, and surrounding environment, demands standardization, integration, and systems interoperability. A consistent and finalized process of adoption and implementation of methods and tools from the International Standard Accident Number (ISAN), via findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) data principles, to Medical Informatics and Digital Health Multilingual Ontology (MIMO) - capable of looking at different approaches to encourage the integration between the ODH framework and the A&EI vision, provides a first answer to these needs.

Conclusions: ODH and A&EI look at different scales but with similar goals for converging health and environmental-related data management standards to enable multi-sources, interdisciplinary, and real-time data integration and interoperability. This allows holistic digital health both in routine and emergency events.

Aims and objectives: To examine the nature and use of automation in contemporary clinical information systems by reviewing studies reporting the implementation and evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare settings.

Method: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, the tables of contents of major informatics journals, and the bibliographies of articles were searched for studies reporting evaluation of AI in clinical settings from January 2021 to December 2022. We documented the clinical application areas and tasks supported, and the level of system autonomy. Reported effects on user experience, decision-making, care delivery and outcomes were summarised.

Results: AI technologies are being applied in a wide variety of clinical areas. Most contemporary systems utilise deep learning, use routinely collected data, support diagnosis and triage, are assistive (requiring users to confirm or approve AI provided information or decisions), and are used by doctors in acute care settings in high-income nations. AI systems are integrated and used within existing clinical information systems including electronic medical records. There is limited support for One Health goals. Evaluation is largely based on quantitative methods measuring effects on decision-making.

Conclusion: AI systems are being implemented and evaluated in many clinical areas. There remain many opportunities to understand patterns of routine use and evaluate effects on decision-making, care delivery and patient outcomes using mixed-methods. Support for One Health including integrating data about environmental factors and social determinants needs further exploration.

Background: With the rise of social media, social media use for delivering mental health interventions has become increasingly popular. However, there is no comprehensive overview available on how this field developed over time.

Objectives: The objective of this paper is to provide an overview over time of the use of social media for delivering mental health interventions. Specifically, we examine which mental health conditions and target groups have been targeted, and which social media channels or tools have been used since this topic first appeared in research.

Methods: To provide an overview of the use of social media for mental health interventions, we conducted a search for studies in four databases (PubMed; ACM Digital Library; PsycInfo; and CINAHL) and two trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov; and Cochranelibrary.com). A sample of representative keywords related to mental health and social media was used for that search. Automatic text analysis methods (e.g., BERTopic analysis, word clouds) were applied to identify topics, and to extract target groups and types of social media.

Results: A total of 458 studies were included in this review (n=228 articles, and n=230 registries). Anxiety and depression were the most frequently mentioned conditions in titles of both articles and registries. BERTopic analysis identified depression and anxiety as the main topics, as well as several addictions (including gambling, alcohol, and smoking). Mental health and women's research were highlighted as the main targeted topics of these studies. The most frequently targeted groups were "adults" (39.5%) and "parents" (33.4%). Facebook, WhatsApp, messenger platforms in general, Instagram, and forums were the most frequently mentioned tools in these interventions.

Conclusions: We learned that research interest in social media-based interventions in mental health is increasing, particularly in the last two years. A variety of tools have been studied, and trends towards forums and Facebook show that tools allowing for more content are preferred for mental health interventions. Future research should assess which social media tools are best suited in terms of clinical outcomes. Additionally, we conclude that natural language processing tools can help in studying trends in research on a particular topic.

Objective: To identify links between Participatory Health Informatics (PHI) and the One Digital Health framework (ODH) and to show how PHI could be used as a catalyst or contributor to ODH.

Methods: We have analyzed the addressed topics within the ODH framework in previous IMIA Yearbook contributions from our working group during the last 10 years. We have matched main themes with the ODH's framework three perspectives (individual health and wellbeing, population and society, and ecosystem).

Results: PHI catalysts ODH individual health and wellbeing perspective by providing a more comprehensive view on human health, attitudes, and relations between human health and animal health. Integration of specific behavior change techniques or gamification strategies in digital solutions are effective to change behaviors which address the P5 paradigm. PHI supports the population and society perspective through the engagement of the various stakeholders in healthcare. At the same time, PHI might increase a risk for health inequities due to technologies inaccessible to all equally and challenges associated with this. PHI is a catalyst for the ecosystem perspective by contributing data into the digital health data ecosystem allowing for analysis of interrelations between the various data which in turn might provide links among all components of the healthcare ecosystem.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that PHI can and will involve topics relating to ODH. As the ODH concept crystalizes and becomes increasingly influential, its themes will permeate and become embedded in PHI even more. We look forward to these developments and co-evolution of the two frameworks.

As the informatics community commits to the goal of advancing health equity, it is essential that we openly critique our current approaches and reimagine the ways in which we design, implement, evaluate, and advocate for policies related to informatics interventions. In this paper, we present five provocations as a starting point for building more conscientious informatics practice in service of this goal: 1) Health informatics interventions can create an "illusion of impactful action" without significant material benefits for marginalized patients, families, and communities; 2) Health informatics interventions target the wrong stakeholders, the wrong processes, and the wrong technologies to achieve equity; 3) Informaticians must conceptualize health literacy and other factors shaping patients' experiences as a system-level rather than individual-level characteristic; 4) Informatics interventions wrongly assume that interacting contextual factors can be meaningfully captured by over-simplified structured variables; and 5) Informatics interventions often specify the wrong system boundaries and solution space. We further assert that drastic shifts in our current practices will allow us to honor our claims of valuing patient-centered approaches, especially for marginalized communities.

Objectives: To select the best papers that made original and high impact contributions in human factors and organizational issues in biomedical informatics in 2021.

Methods: A rigorous extraction process based on queries from Web of Science® and PubMed/Medline was conducted to identify the scientific contributions published in 2021 that address human factors and organizational issues in biomedical informatics. The screening of papers on titles and abstracts independently by the two section editors led to a total of 3,206 papers. These papers were discussed for a selection of 12 finalist papers, which were then reviewed by the two section editors, two chief editors, and by three external reviewers from internationally renowned research teams.

Results: The query process resulted in 12 papers that reveal interesting and rigorous methods and important studies in human factors that move the field forward, particularly in clinical informatics and emerging technologies such as brain-computer interfaces and mobile health. This year three papers were clearly outstanding and help advance in the field. They provide examples of examining novel and important topics such as the nature of human-machine interaction behavior and norms, use of social-media based design for an electronic health record, and emerging topics such as brain-computer interfaces. thematic development of electronic health records and usability techniques, and condition-focused patient facing tools. Those concerning the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included as part of that section.

Conclusion: The selected papers make important contributions to human factors and organizational issues, expanding and deepening our knowledge of how to apply theory and applications of new technologies in health.

Objectives: To highlight novelty studies and current trends in Public Health and Epidemiology Informatics (PHEI).

Methods: Similar to last year's edition, a PubMed search of 2021 scientific publications on PHEI has been conducted. The resulting references were reviewed by the two section editors. Then, 11 candidate best papers were selected from the initial 782 references. These papers were then peer-reviewed by selected external reviewers. They included at least two senior researchers, to allow the Editorial Committee of the 2022 IMIA Yearbook edition to make an informed decision for selecting the best papers of the PHEI section.

Results: Among the 782 references retrieved from PubMed, two were selected as the best papers. The first best paper reports a study which performed a comprehensive comparison of traditional statistical approaches (e.g., Cox Proportional Hazards models) vs. machine learning techniques in a large, real-world dataset for predicting breast cancer survival, with a focus on explainability. The second paper describes the engineering of deep learning models to establish associations between ocular features and major hepatobiliary diseases and to advance automated screening and identification of hepatobiliary diseases from ocular images.

Conclusion: Overall, from this year edition, we observed that the number of studies related to PHEI has decreased. The findings of the two studies selected as best papers on the topic suggest that a significant effort is still being made by the community to compare traditional learning methods with deep learning methods. Using multimodality datasets (images, texts) could improve approaches for tackling public health issues.