Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVES: Define a legal framework for electronic medical records (EMRs) and determine the degree to which the countries of the Region of the Americas are prepared in this regard. METHODS: The methodology consisted of two phases. In the first, a Delphi methodology was used to develop a questionnaire and define the framework and legal domains applicable to EMRs. In the second, the questionnaire was completed in each country. This included identifying national experts and the data collection process. RESULTS: Information was collected from a total of 21 countries regarding their situation with respect to legislation on EMRs in the following domains: 1) specific legislation on EMRs; 2) protection of patients' data and secondary use of the data; 3) legislation related to the actions of health professionals; 4) regulation on EMRs and the role of patients; and 5) health standards and EMR promotion programs. CONCLUSIONS: There has been progress in the Region with respect to new legislation covering the main areas related to EMRs (for example, protection of sensitive data and use of digital signatures). However, it is necessary to continue to address issues such as access to and updating of information in EMRs. This study contributes information on the essential components of legislation on EMRs, and reports on the situation in the Region of the Americas.

[RESUMEN]. Objetivos. Definir un marco legal relacionado con los Registros Médicos Electrónicos (RME) y conocer el grado de preparación que tienen los países de la Región de las Américas al respecto. Métodos. La metodología contó con dos fases. En la primera, se utilizó una metodología Delphi para el desarrollo del cuestionario y la definición del marco y dominios legales sobre RME. En la segunda, se realizó el relevamiento por país, que incluyó la identificación de referentes nacionales y el proceso de recolección de datos. Resultados. Se relevó información de un total de 21 países sobre su situación con respecto a los aspectos legales y RME incluidos los siguientes dominios: 1) legislación específica sobre RME, 2) protección de datos de pacientes y uso secundario de la información, 3) legislación relacionada al accionar de los profesionales de la salud, 4) regulación sobre RME y el rol de los pacientes y 5) estándares en salud y programas de promoción de los RME. Conclusiones. Existen avances en la Región con respecto a la publicación de leyes que cubren los principales dominios de los RME (por ejemplo, la protección de datos sensibles o el uso de la firma digital). Sin embargo, temas como el acceso y la actualización de la información en los registros deben seguir siendo fortalecidos. Este estudio contribuye a informar sobre cuáles son los componentes mínimos que deben ser legislados en materia de RME, así como a ofrecer un estado de situación sobre el tema en la Región de las Américas. ; [ABSTRACT]. Objectives. Define a legal framework for electronic medical records (EMRs) and determine the degree to which the countries of the Region of the Americas are prepared in this regard. Methods. The methodology consisted of two phases. In the first, a Delphi methodology was used to develop a questionnaire and define the framework and legal domains applicable to EMRs. In the second, the questionnaire was completed in each country. This included identifying national experts and the data collection process. Results. Information was collected from a total of 21 countries regarding their situation with respect to legislation on EMRs in the following domains: 1) specific legislation on EMRs; 2) protection of patients' data and secondary use of the data; 3) legislation related to the actions of health professionals; 4) regulation on EMRs and the role of patients; and 5) health standards and EMR promotion programs. Conclusions. There has been progress in the Region with respect to new legislation covering the main areas related to EMRs (for example, protection of sensitive data and use of digital signatures). However, it is necessary to continue to address issues such as access to and updating of information in EMRs. This study contributes information on the essential components of legislation on EMRs, and reports on the situation in the Region of the Americas. ; [RESUMO]. Objetivos. Definir um enquadramento legal para os registros eletrônicos em saúde (RES) e identificar o grau de preparação dos países da Região das Américas neste sentido. Métodos. A metodologia do estudo foi dividida em duas fases. Na primeira fase, foi usado o método Delphi para elaborar o questionário e definir o enquadramento e os domínios legais para RES. Na segunda fase, foi realizada a pesquisa por país, com a identificação de dados referentes nacionais e processo de coleta de dados. Resultados. Ao todo, foram obtidos dados de 21 países sobre os aspectos legais e RES distribuídos nos seguintes domínios: 1) legislação específica para RES, 2) proteção dos dados dos pacientes e uso secundário da informação, 3) legislação relacionada à atuação dos profissionais da saúde, 4) regulamentação dos RES e papel dos pacientes e 5) padrões em saúde e programas de promoção dos RES. Conclusões. Houve progresso na Região quanto à promulgação de leis que abrangem os principais domínios dos RES (p. ex., proteção de dados sensíveis ou o uso de assinatura digital). Porém, alguns aspectos precisam ser reforçados, como o acesso e a atualização das informações nos registros. Este estudo contribui ao descrever os aspectos básicos da regulamentação e informar a situação dos RES na Região das Américas.

Contributions to the content of this paper through interviews, presentations and mapping exercises were made by country teams present at the March 2011 Dakar workshop ; Workshop objectives (2011) identified shared problems that could be tackled through collective strategies, and action plans to be tailored to each country (Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali and Sierra Leone). Goals for research for health (R4H) system strengthening were identified as priority areas for development in the four countries. The papers provide a descriptive review of key elements of the national health research systems in each country, and present a cross-country comparison, highlighting similarities and differences in country needs and challenges with respect to R4H system development.

Background: Researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in scientific literature. Mapping of authorship of articles can provide an assessment of data ownership and research capacity in LMICs over time and identify variations between different settings.Methods: Systematic mapping of maternal health interventional research in LMICs from 2000 to 2012, comparing country of study and of affiliation of first authors. Studies on health systems or promotion; community-based activities; and haemorrhage, hypertension, HIV/STIs and malaria were included. Following review of 35,078 titles and abstracts, 2292 full-text publications were included. Data ownership was measured by the proportion of articles with an LMIC lead author (author affiliated with an LMIC institution).Results: The total number of papers led by an LMIC author rose from 45.0/year in 2000–2003 to 98.0/year in 2004–2007, but increased only slightly thereafter to 113.1/year in 2008–2012. In the same periods, the proportion of papers led by a local author was 58.4 %, 60.8 % and 60.1 %, respectively. Data ownership varies markedly between countries. A quarter of countries led more than 75 % of their research; while in 10 countries, under 25 % of publications had a local first author. Researchers at LMIC institutions led 56.6 % (1297) of all papers, but only 26.8 % of systematic reviews (65/243), 29.9 % of modelling studies (44/147), and 33.2 % of articles in journals with an Impact Factor ≥5 (61/184). Sub-Saharan Africa authors led 54.2 % (538/993) of studies in the region, while 73.4 % did in Latin America and the Caribbean (223/304). Authors affiliated with United States (561) and United Kingdom (207) institutions together account for a third of publications. Around two thirds of USAID and European Union funded studies had high-income country leads, twice as many as that of Wellcome Trust and Rockefeller Foundation.Conclusions: There are marked gaps in data ownership and these have not diminished over time. Increased ...

BACKGROUND: Researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in scientific literature. Mapping of authorship of articles can provide an assessment of data ownership and research capacity in LMICs over time and identify variations between different settings. METHODS: Systematic mapping of maternal health interventional research in LMICs from 2000 to 2012, comparing country of study and of affiliation of first authors. Studies on health systems or promotion; community-based activities; and haemorrhage, hypertension, HIV/STIs and malaria were included. Following review of 35,078 titles and abstracts, 2292 full-text publications were included. Data ownership was measured by the proportion of articles with an LMIC lead author (author affiliated with an LMIC institution). RESULTS: The total number of papers led by an LMIC author rose from 45.0/year in 2000-2003 to 98.0/year in 2004-2007, but increased only slightly thereafter to 113.1/year in 2008-2012. In the same periods, the proportion of papers led by a local author was 58.4 %, 60.8 % and 60.1 %, respectively. Data ownership varies markedly between countries. A quarter of countries led more than 75 % of their research; while in 10 countries, under 25 % of publications had a local first author. Researchers at LMIC institutions led 56.6 % (1297) of all papers, but only 26.8 % of systematic reviews (65/243), 29.9 % of modelling studies (44/147), and 33.2 % of articles in journals with an Impact Factor ≥5 (61/184). Sub-Saharan Africa authors led 54.2 % (538/993) of studies in the region, while 73.4 % did in Latin America and the Caribbean (223/304). Authors affiliated with United States (561) and United Kingdom (207) institutions together account for a third of publications. Around two thirds of USAID and European Union funded studies had high-income country leads, twice as many as that of Wellcome Trust and Rockefeller Foundation. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked gaps in data ownership and these have not diminished over time. Increased locally-led publications, however, does suggest a growing capacity in LMIC institutions to analyse and articulate research findings. Differences in author attribution between funders might signal important variations in funders' expectations of authorship and discrepancies in how funders understand collaboration. More stringent authorship oversight and reconsideration of authorship guidelines could facilitate growth in LMIC leadership. Left unaddressed, deficiencies in research ownership will continue to hinder alignment between the research undertaken and knowledge needs of LMICs.