使用数字健康评估方法改进数字健康干预措施中的安全要求。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES DIGITAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2024-07-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20552076241258756
Stuart Harrison, Carsten Maple, Gregory Epiphaniou, Theodoros N Arvanitis
{"title":"使用数字健康评估方法改进数字健康干预措施中的安全要求。","authors":"Stuart Harrison, Carsten Maple, Gregory Epiphaniou, Theodoros N Arvanitis","doi":"10.1177/20552076241258756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Establish a relationship between digital health intervention (DHI) and health system challenges (HSCs), as defined by the World Health Organization; within the context of hazard identification (HazID), leading to safety claims. To improve the justification of safety of DHIs and provide a standardised approach to hazard assessment through common terminology, ontology and simplification of safety claims. Articulation of results, to provide guidance for health strategy and regulatory/standards-based compliance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We categorise and analyse hazards using a qualitative HazID study. This method utilises a synergy between simplicity of DHI intended use and the interaction from a multidisciplinary team (technologists and health informaticians) in the hazard analysis of the subject under assessment as an influencing factor. Although there are other methodologies available for hazard assessment. We examine the hazards identified and associated failures to articulate the improvements in the quality of safety claims.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Applying the method provides the hazard assessment and helps generate the assurance case. Justification of safety is made and elicits confidence in safety claim. Controls to hazards contribute to meeting the HSC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This method of hazard assessment, analysis and the use of ontologies (DHI & HSC) improves the justification of safety claim and evidence articulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51333,"journal":{"name":"DIGITAL HEALTH","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11273795/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving safety claims in digital health interventions using the digital health assessment method.\",\"authors\":\"Stuart Harrison, Carsten Maple, Gregory Epiphaniou, Theodoros N Arvanitis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20552076241258756\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Establish a relationship between digital health intervention (DHI) and health system challenges (HSCs), as defined by the World Health Organization; within the context of hazard identification (HazID), leading to safety claims. To improve the justification of safety of DHIs and provide a standardised approach to hazard assessment through common terminology, ontology and simplification of safety claims. Articulation of results, to provide guidance for health strategy and regulatory/standards-based compliance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We categorise and analyse hazards using a qualitative HazID study. This method utilises a synergy between simplicity of DHI intended use and the interaction from a multidisciplinary team (technologists and health informaticians) in the hazard analysis of the subject under assessment as an influencing factor. Although there are other methodologies available for hazard assessment. We examine the hazards identified and associated failures to articulate the improvements in the quality of safety claims.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Applying the method provides the hazard assessment and helps generate the assurance case. Justification of safety is made and elicits confidence in safety claim. Controls to hazards contribute to meeting the HSC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This method of hazard assessment, analysis and the use of ontologies (DHI & HSC) improves the justification of safety claim and evidence articulation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11273795/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIGITAL HEALTH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241258756\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIGITAL HEALTH","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241258756","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:根据世界卫生组织的定义,在危险识别(HazID)的背景下,建立数字健康干预(DHI)与健康系统挑战(HSCs)之间的关系,从而提出安全主张。通过通用术语、本体论和简化安全声明,改进对数字医疗干预安全性的论证,并提供标准化的危害评估方法。阐明结果,为健康战略和基于法规/标准的合规性提供指导:我们使用定性 HazID 研究对危害进行分类和分析。这种方法利用了 DHI 预期用途的简易性与多学科团队(技术专家和健康信息专家)在危害分析中的互动性之间的协同作用,将被评估对象作为一个影响因素。尽管还有其他方法可用于危害评估。我们研究了已确定的危害和相关故障,以阐明安全索赔质量的提高:结果:应用该方法可进行危险评估,并有助于生成保证案例。对安全进行论证,使人们对安全要求更有信心。对危险的控制有助于达到 HSC 标准:这种危险评估、分析和使用本体(DHI 和 HSC)的方法提高了安全要求的合理性和证据表达。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving safety claims in digital health interventions using the digital health assessment method.

Objective: Establish a relationship between digital health intervention (DHI) and health system challenges (HSCs), as defined by the World Health Organization; within the context of hazard identification (HazID), leading to safety claims. To improve the justification of safety of DHIs and provide a standardised approach to hazard assessment through common terminology, ontology and simplification of safety claims. Articulation of results, to provide guidance for health strategy and regulatory/standards-based compliance.

Methods: We categorise and analyse hazards using a qualitative HazID study. This method utilises a synergy between simplicity of DHI intended use and the interaction from a multidisciplinary team (technologists and health informaticians) in the hazard analysis of the subject under assessment as an influencing factor. Although there are other methodologies available for hazard assessment. We examine the hazards identified and associated failures to articulate the improvements in the quality of safety claims.

Results: Applying the method provides the hazard assessment and helps generate the assurance case. Justification of safety is made and elicits confidence in safety claim. Controls to hazards contribute to meeting the HSC.

Conclusions: This method of hazard assessment, analysis and the use of ontologies (DHI & HSC) improves the justification of safety claim and evidence articulation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
DIGITAL HEALTH
DIGITAL HEALTH Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
302
期刊最新文献
A feasibility study on utilizing machine learning technology to reduce the costs of gastric cancer screening in Taizhou, China. Ageing well with tech: Exploring the determinants of e-healthcare services adoption in an emerging economy. Chinese colposcopists' attitudes toward the colposcopic artificial intelligence auxiliary diagnostic system (CAIADS): A nation-wide, multi-center survey. Digital leadership: Norwegian healthcare managers' attitudes towards using digital tools. Disease characteristics influence the privacy calculus to adopt electronic health records: A survey study in Germany.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1