IRIS Department, Lab RETINES, Faculté de Médecine, Université Côte d'Azur, France.
Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Australia.
Yearb Med Inform. 2020 Aug;29(1):176-183. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1702022. Epub 2020 Aug 21.
To summarise the state of the art published in 2019 in consumer health informatics and education, with a special emphasis on "Ethics and Health Informatics".
We conducted a systematic search of articles published in PubMed using a predefined set of queries, which identified 368 potential articles for review. These articles were screened according to topic relevance and 15 were selected for consideration of best paper candidates, which were then presented to a panel of international experts for full paper review and scoring. The top five papers according to the external reviewers' ranking were discussed in a consensus meeting. Finally, the paper that received the highest score from four of the five experts was selected as the best paper on social media and ethics for patients and consumers of the year 2019.
Despite using the terms "ethics" and "ethical" in the search query, we retrieved very few articles. The bibliometric analysis identified three major clusters centred on "social", "health", and "study". Among the top five papers, one was a review where the authors identified ethical issues across four areas at the intersection of social media and health: 1) the impact of social networking sites on the doctor-patient relationship; 2) the development of e-health platforms to deliver care; 3) the use of online data and algorithms to inform health research; and 4) the broader public health consequences of widespread social media use. The other papers highlighted ethical concerns in using social media to interact with patients at different phases of a clinical research protocol, such as recruitment phase, participant engagement, data linkage, and detection and monitoring of adverse events.
Findings suggest that most users do not think that using social media for patient monitoring in clinical research, for example using Twitter for clinical trial recruitment, constitutes inappropriate surveillance or a violation of privacy. However, further research is needed to identify whether and how views on ethical concerns differed between social media platforms and across populations.
总结 2019 年发布的消费者健康信息学和教育方面的最新进展,特别强调“伦理与健康信息学”。
我们使用预定义的查询在 PubMed 中进行了系统搜索,共确定了 368 篇潜在的文章进行审查。这些文章根据主题相关性进行筛选,最终选出 15 篇作为最佳论文候选者,然后提交给一组国际专家进行全文审查和评分。根据外部评审员的排名,排名前五的论文在共识会议上进行了讨论。最后,根据四名专家中的最高分,选择了 2019 年社交媒体与患者和消费者伦理方面的最佳论文。
尽管在搜索查询中使用了“伦理”和“道德”这两个术语,但我们检索到的文章很少。文献计量分析确定了三个以“社会”、“健康”和“研究”为中心的主要集群。在排名前五的论文中,有一篇是综述,作者在社交媒体和健康的交叉点上确定了四个领域的伦理问题:1)社交网络对医患关系的影响;2)开发电子健康平台提供护理;3)使用在线数据和算法为健康研究提供信息;4)广泛使用社交媒体的更广泛的公共卫生后果。其他论文则强调了在不同临床研究方案阶段使用社交媒体与患者互动时的伦理问题,例如在招募阶段、参与者参与、数据链接以及检测和监测不良事件。
研究结果表明,大多数用户认为,例如使用 Twitter 进行临床试验招募,在临床研究中使用社交媒体对患者进行监测并不构成不当监控或侵犯隐私。然而,需要进一步研究以确定在不同社交媒体平台和不同人群中,对伦理问题的看法是否存在差异,以及存在哪些差异。