Legal requirements on secondary use of medical data in the EU and USA – A case study

The use of secondary data in health care research has become a very important issue over the past few years. Data from the treatment context are being used for evaluation of medical data for external quality assurance, as well as to answer medical questions in the form of registers and research databases. Additionally, the establishment of electronic clinical systems like data warehouses provides new opportunities for the secondary use of clinical data. Because health data is among the most sensitive information about an individual, the data must be safeguarded from disclosure.

Begrifflichkeiten in der Wettbewerberforschung : ein Ordnungsversuch

Der vorliegende Artikel bezieht sich auf die unterschiedlichen Begrifflichkeiten, die im Umfeld der Wettbewerberforschung in der Literatur Verwendung finden. Neben den Begriffen des angloamerikanischen Sprachraums (Competitive Intelligence, Competitor Intelligence und Competitor Analyse) existieren für den deutschsprachigen Raum (Wettbewerber-, Konkurrenten-, Wettbewerbs- und Konkurrenzanalyse) ebenfalls verschiedenartige Begriffe, denen in der Literatur eine häufig unterschiedliche Verwendung zu Teil wird. Dieser Artikel baut einen Ordnungsansatz auf, der die angesprochenen Begrifflichkeiten in eine Struktur bringt, um somit eine klare inhaltliche Trennung der einzelnen Begriffe sowie eine in Relation bringende Darstellung aufbauen zu können. Dies ermöglicht eine ambiguitätsfreie Verwendung innerhalb der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit durch definitorisch fixierte Begriffsinhalte.

Mobile Technologies: Expectancy, Usage, and Acceptance of Clinical Staff and Patients at a University Medical Center

BACKGROUND: Despite their increasing popularity, little is known about how users perceive mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet PCs in medical contexts. Available studies are often restricted to evaluating the success of specific interventions and do not adequately cover the users' basic attitudes, for example, their expectations or concerns toward using mobile devices in medical settings. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to obtain a comprehensive picture, both from the perspective of the patients, as well as the doctors, regarding the use and acceptance of mobile devices within medical contexts in general well as the perceived challenges when introducing the technology. METHODS: Doctors working at Hannover Medical School (206/1151, response 17.90%), as well as patients being admitted to this facility (213/279, utilization 76.3%) were surveyed about their acceptance and use of mobile devices in medical settings. Regarding demographics, both samples were representative of the respective study population. GNU R (version 3.1.1) was used for statistical testing. Fisher's exact test, two-sided, alpha=.05 with Monte Carlo approximation, 2000 replicates, was applied to determine dependencies between two variables. RESULTS: The majority of participants already own mobile devices (doctors, 168/206, 81.6%; patients, 110/213, 51.6%). For doctors, use in a professional context does not depend on age (P=.66), professional experience (P=.80), or function (P=.34); gender was a factor (P=.009), and use was more common among male (61/135, 45.2%) than female doctors (17/67, 25%). A correlation between use of mobile devices and age (P=.001) as well as education (P=.002) was seen for patients. Minor differences regarding how mobile devices are perceived in sensitive medical contexts mostly relate to data security, patients are more critical of the devices being used for storing and processing patient data; every fifth patient opposed this, but nevertheless, 4.8% of doctors (10/206) use their devices for this purpose. Both groups voiced only minor concerns about the credibility of the provided content or the technical reliability of the devices. While 8.3% of the doctors (17/206) avoided use during patient contact because they thought patients might be unfamiliar with the devices, (25/213) 11.7% of patients expressed concerns about the technology being too complicated to be used in a health context. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in how patients and doctors perceive the use of mobile devices can be attributed to age and level of education; these factors are often mentioned as contributors of the problems with (mobile) technologies. To fully realize the potential of mobile technologies in a health care context, the needs of both the elderly as well as those who are educationally disadvantaged need to be carefully addressed in all strategies relating to mobile technology in a health context.