Australians love convenience, and there are plenty of businesses in the delivery space spending up big on podcasting advertising, according to the list of the leading brand advertisers.ARN’s iHeart and Magellan AI have compiled the leading 15 brands advertising on Australian podcasts for ...

Retail, telehealth, and gambling services lead Australian podcasting advertisers - Mumbrella

Laws protecting doctors for being prosecuted for providing assisted dying services over the phone or by telehealth have...

Push to expand assisted dying treatment to telehealth | Illawarra Mercury | Wollongong, NSW

Push to expand assisted dying treatment to telehealth | The Canberra Times | Canberra, ACT

Telehealth conferences related to voluntary assisted dying are currently illegal because of separate laws that make it a crime to encourage suicide over a carriage service. Independent MP Kate Chaney is pushing parliament to resolve that technical ban.

MP pushes to legalise telehealth consultations on voluntary assisted dying - ABC News

Eli Health

elihealth

A Roadmap for Addressing Critical Challenges in Human-Machine Social Systems

Attending Token2049 in Singapore was an illuminating experience for anyone involved in crypto, blockchain, or decentralized finance (DeFi). The conversations, debates, and innovative ideas shared across the event provide insight into the rapidly evolving landscape of the digital economy. At Token2049 Singapore, the DeHealth team had the opportunity to present our cutting-edge blockchain protocol designed to empower users with full control over their medical data. Our decentralized storage solution ensures that users can securely store, access, and manage their health information while maintaining complete ownership and privacy. By utilizing private keys, our technology not only guarantees data confidentiality but also enables seamless integration with eHealth applications. With this protocol, we aim to set a new industry standard for data security and user control, paving the way for widespread adoption in the healthcare sector. In this article, I’ll break down some of the most impactful themes and conclusions from the conference—particularly in regard to the challenges and opportunities facing both public and private markets and the key takeaways that all innovators in this space need to be aware of. The Shift from Public to Private Markets One of the most profound insights from Token2049 was Santiago R Santos’s assertion that “there’s little money in public markets, but plenty in private ones.” It’s a sentiment that reflects the current state of the crypto sector, where early-stage venture capital (VC) investment is robust, but liquidity in public markets is increasingly scarce. This imbalance leads to inflated valuations in early rounds that deflate quickly upon token unlocks and release to the public. The challenge now is to stimulate liquidity in public markets, but the strategies being used—primarily through increasing user activity and total value locked (TVL)—are short-term solutions. As we’ve seen with airdrops, meme coins, and token-based incentives, these mechanisms can initially draw in users, but they fail to establish long-term sustainability. Eventually, projects fall into a “death spiral,” especially when driven by unsustainable APY (annual percentage yield) races. Crypto: The Next Evolution of Financial Instruments There’s a prevailing belief that crypto is pushing the boundaries of financial efficiency at a “supra-national” level. Similar to how developed countries have succeeded by creating transparent systems of property rights that accelerate capital markets, crypto projects are building autonomous systems of digital ownership that expand capital markets for online assets—everything from digital currency to art and intellectual property. These projects are also developing infrastructure that can function independently from state-level risks. Layer-1 (L1) and Layer-2 (L2) networks with varying balances of transparency and privacy are solving different business problems. Simultaneously, bridges, wallets, and decentralized finance (DeFi) infrastructures aim to scale and simplify user experiences while attempting to address the growing market fragmentation. The “East vs. West” Divide in Crypto Projects One fascinating theme at Token2049 was the cultural and operational divide between crypto projects originating in the West versus those in the East. Western projects tend to be tech-heavy but struggle with user adoption, whereas Eastern projects attract massive user bases but often lack cutting-edge technological innovation. As a result, both sides remain somewhat insular, each orbiting within its own ecosystem. One interesting case is the growing trend around Telegram Mini Apps (TMA), which allow the release of meme coins and other high-traffic, low-tech initiatives in the Eastern market. While this strategy brings millions of users, the sustainability of these users—who are often chasing quick financial rewards—is questionable. The Rise of Real-World Assets (RWA) in Crypto Another hot topic at Token2049 was the rise of real-world assets (RWA) in the crypto space. Despite stablecoins being the most practical RWA use case (with 75% of daily transactions on the crypto market linked to them), the potential for tokenizing real-world assets like treasury bills and commercial obligations is massive. Yet, legal and regulatory hurdles remain significant barriers to scaling this segment. Privacy vs. Transparency: An Ongoing Debate A major point of contention at the conference was the balance between privacy and transparency in blockchain. Representatives from projects like Arbitrum, Solana, and Partisia agreed that it’s nearly impossible to fully combine both. You’re either private and non-transparent (which introduces regulatory risk, as we’ve seen with Tornado Cash) or transparent and, therefore, vulnerable to regulation targeting project founders. The Growing Fragmentation of Crypto Infrastructure The rapid growth of L1 and L2 networks has led to significant fragmentation, which has become a critical challenge for the sector. Liquidity is being split across multiple platforms, making it difficult for users to navigate different networks without complex bridges, wallets, and protocols. This not only makes the user experience more cumbersome but also introduces additional risks—particularly around security and liquidity. The DeFi Renaissance DeFi projects were some of the most discussed at Token2049. Despite challenges around TVL (Total Value Locked) and yield generation, DeFi remains one of the few segments within crypto where real business models, internal economies, and decentralization are actively developing. However, these projects are also starting to position themselves more like centralized finance (CeFi) entities to avoid regulatory scrutiny, which could eventually force many DeFi protocols to adopt more traditional financial obligations. The Future of Ethereum and Solana Lastly, much attention was paid to the future of Ethereum and Solana. Ethereum’s growth continues, but liquidity and fees are being siphoned off to Layer 2s, which are now essential to the network’s future. Solana, on the other hand, is advancing rapidly, attracting both mass users and corporate players like PayPal. Both ecosystems have their strengths—Ethereum’s being its established user base and developer support, while Solana is faster, cheaper, and has the potential to scale more broadly. How these platforms evolve will play a key role in shaping the broader crypto landscape over the next few years. As we continue to monitor the development of crypto, DeFi, and tokenization, the key themes from Token2049 Singapore highlight the necessity for both innovation and sustainability. Crypto is no longer just about creating technology for the sake of technology. The focus is shifting toward building practical, scalable systems that can integrate into the global financial ecosystem, all while addressing the unique challenges of privacy, transparency, and regulation. It’s an exciting time to be at the forefront of this transformation! Attending Token2049 in Singapore was an illuminating experience for anyone involved in crypto, blockchain, or decentralized finance (DeFi). The conversations, debates, and innovative ideas shared across the event provide insight into the rapidly evolving landscape of the digital economy. At Token2049 Singapore, the DeHealth team had the opportunity to present our cutting-edge blockchain protocol designed to empower users with full control over their medical data. Our decentralized storage solution ensures that users can securely store, access, and manage their health information while maintaining complete ownership and privacy. By utilizing private keys, our technology not only guarantees data confidentiality but also enables seamless integration with eHealth applications. With this protocol, we aim to set a new industry standard for data security and user control, paving the way for widespread adoption in the healthcare sector. DeHealth In this article, I’ll break down some of the most impactful themes and conclusions from the conference—particularly in regard to the challenges and opportunities facing both public and private markets and the key takeaways that all innovators in this space need to be aware of. The Shift from Public to Private Markets One of the most profound insights from Token2049 was Santiago R Santos’s assertion that “there’s little money in public markets, but plenty in private ones.” It’s a sentiment that reflects the current state of the crypto sector, where early-stage venture capital (VC) investment is robust, but liquidity in public markets is increasingly scarce. This imbalance leads to inflated valuations in early rounds that deflate quickly upon token unlocks and release to the public. The challenge now is to stimulate liquidity in public markets, but the strategies being used—primarily through increasing user activity and total value locked (TVL)—are short-term solutions. As we’ve seen with airdrops, meme coins, and token-based incentives, these mechanisms can initially draw in users, but they fail to establish long-term sustainability. Eventually, projects fall into a “death spiral,” especially when driven by unsustainable APY (annual percentage yield) races. Crypto: The Next Evolution of Financial Instruments There’s a prevailing belief that crypto is pushing the boundaries of financial efficiency at a “supra-national” level. Similar to how developed countries have succeeded by creating transparent systems of property rights that accelerate capital markets, crypto projects are building autonomous systems of digital ownership that expand capital markets for online assets—everything from digital currency to art and intellectual property. These projects are also developing infrastructure that can function independently from state-level risks. Layer-1 (L1) and Layer-2 (L2) networks with varying balances of transparency and privacy are solving different business problems. Simultaneously, bridges, wallets, and decentralized finance (DeFi) infrastructures aim to scale and simplify user experiences while attempting to address the growing market fragmentation. The “East vs. West” Divide in Crypto Projects One fascinating theme at Token2049 was the cultural and operational divide between crypto projects originating in the West versus those in the East. Western projects tend to be tech-heavy but struggle with user adoption, whereas Eastern projects attract massive user bases but often lack cutting-edge technological innovation. As a result, both sides remain somewhat insular, each orbiting within its own ecosystem. One interesting case is the growing trend around Telegram Mini Apps (TMA), which allow the release of meme coins and other high-traffic, low-tech initiatives in the Eastern market. While this strategy brings millions of users, the sustainability of these users—who are often chasing quick financial rewards—is questionable. The Rise of Real-World Assets (RWA) in Crypto Another hot topic at Token2049 was the rise of real-world assets (RWA) in the crypto space. Despite stablecoins being the most practical RWA use case (with 75% of daily transactions on the crypto market linked to them), the potential for tokenizing real-world assets like treasury bills and commercial obligations is massive. Yet, legal and regulatory hurdles remain significant barriers to scaling this segment. Privacy vs. Transparency: An Ongoing Debate A major point of contention at the conference was the balance between privacy and transparency in blockchain. Representatives from projects like Arbitrum, Solana, and Partisia agreed that it’s nearly impossible to fully combine both. You’re either private and non-transparent (which introduces regulatory risk, as we’ve seen with Tornado Cash) or transparent and, therefore, vulnerable to regulation targeting project founders. The Growing Fragmentation of Crypto Infrastructure The rapid growth of L1 and L2 networks has led to significant fragmentation, which has become a critical challenge for the sector. Liquidity is being split across multiple platforms, making it difficult for users to navigate different networks without complex bridges, wallets, and protocols. This not only makes the user experience more cumbersome but also introduces additional risks—particularly around security and liquidity. The DeFi Renaissance DeFi projects were some of the most discussed at Token2049. Despite challenges around TVL (Total Value Locked) and yield generation, DeFi remains one of the few segments within crypto where real business models, internal economies, and decentralization are actively developing. However, these projects are also starting to position themselves more like centralized finance (CeFi) entities to avoid regulatory scrutiny, which could eventually force many DeFi protocols to adopt more traditional financial obligations. The Future of Ethereum and Solana Lastly, much attention was paid to the future of Ethereum and Solana. Ethereum’s growth continues, but liquidity and fees are being siphoned off to Layer 2s, which are now essential to the network’s future. Solana, on the other hand, is advancing rapidly, attracting both mass users and corporate players like PayPal. Both ecosystems have their strengths—Ethereum’s being its established user base and developer support, while Solana is faster, cheaper, and has the potential to scale more broadly. How these platforms evolve will play a key role in shaping the broader crypto landscape over the next few years. As we continue to monitor the development of crypto, DeFi, and tokenization, the key themes from Token2049 Singapore highlight the necessity for both innovation and sustainability. Crypto is no longer just about creating technology for the sake of technology. The focus is shifting toward building practical, scalable systems that can integrate into the global financial ecosystem, all while addressing the unique challenges of privacy, transparency, and regulation. It’s an exciting time to be at the forefront of this transformation!

Token2049 Singapore: Key Takeaways from the Future of Crypto and DeFi

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Corresponding author: Professor Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Trafford Centre, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN19RY, UK. Email: p.ghezzi@bsms.ac.uk; phone: +44-(0)1273-873112 Abstract The fact that Internet companies may record our personal data and track our online behaviour for commercial or political purpose has emphasized aspects related to online privacy. This has also led to the development of search engines that promise no tracking and privacy. Search engines also have a major role in spreading low-quality health information such as that of anti-vaccine websites. This study investigates the relationship between search engines’ approach to privacy and the scientific quality of the information they return. We analyzed the first 30 webpages returned searching “vaccines autism” in English, Spanish, Italian and French. The results show that “alternative” search engines (Duckduckgo, Ecosia, Qwant, Swisscows and Mojeek) may return more anti-vaccine pages (10-53%) than Google.com (0%). Some localized versions of Google, however, returned more anti-vaccine webpages (up to 10%) than Google.com. Our study suggests that designing a search engine that is privacy savvy and avoids issues with filter bubbles that can result from user-tracking is necessary but insufficient; instead mechanisms should be developed to test search engines from the perspective of information quality (particularly for health-related webpages), before they can be deemed trustworthy providers of public health information. Introduction The World Health Organization lists vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019 1, requiring ongoing global monitoring. Despite the fact that the 1998 study which incorrectly suggested that the MMR vaccine could cause autism in children and prompted antivaccine beliefs 2 has now been discredited, misinformation, and indeed, disinformation, about vaccines continues to be published on the Internet perpetuating such beliefs. It has been suggested that this misinformation plays a role in the current low uptake of vaccines in developed countries 3. Understanding whether this is actually the case, and how to address this issue, is crucial as web-based sources of health information may be instrumental to solve the sustainability challenge currently facing health systems across the globe. The accuracy of information provided by a website is a key indicator of its overall information quality (IQ). The broader aspects of IQ have been the subject of many studies 5, but health IQ and trustworthiness of the sources have only partially been characterized 6. Studies looking at the influence of variations in eHealth literacy levels 7 and trust in different sources of online health information2 indicate that the relationship is not linear in all cases, i.e. higher health IQ does not result automatically in higher perceived levels of trustworthiness. For example, in a study by Chen et al. 8, 618 people were recruited to complete a survey which tested their eHealth literacy level, asked them to identify which of 25 sources of health information they used, and how much they trusted each source. The study showed that people with lower eHealth literacy were less likely to trust medical websites (typically higher IQ) and more likely to trust social media, blogs, and celebrity webpages (typically lower IQ). This might seem a spurious result, were it not for the fact that research has shown that those with high eHealth literacy assess more accurately the credibility and relevance of online health information, whereas those with low eHealth literacy often struggle to locate and understand eHealth information 9. This difficulty lowers their self-efficacy 10, distorts their perception of source credibility, and impacts negatively perceived trustworthiness 9, ultimately creating a need for individuals with low eHealth literacy to find an alternative means of determining trustworthiness in online sources of information. One such alternative is social endorsement. Visible social endorsement, e.g. ‘likes,’ 11 enables those with low eHealth literacy to determine trust based on the bandwagon heuristic and assume that, if the source has already been deemed valid by others, then it is safe for them to trust it too 10,12. Traditional medical websites afford those with low eHealth literacy no such alternative means of determining credibility and trust. This suggests that those who are more vulnerable to the real-world effects of both disinformation and misinformation (e.g. declining to vaccinate their children) are more likely to rely on online sources with lower health IQ, which are more prone to spread such inflammatory and inaccurate information. Personalisation of online search results may favour this phenomenon and lead to a vicious cycle where the more one searches and reads dis- and mis-information about vaccines the less one finds and reads scientific information on the same topic. At the same time, there are increasing concerns about the privacy risks associated with Internet search engines storing potentially sensitive and private health information contained within users search histories, combining it with additional information collected for tracking purposes, and using these data for commercial or other purposes 13,14. This creates a public push back against the idea that search engines or public health providers should interfere in the results people see when searching for health information online. This makes it hard to address concerns about health disinformation/misinformation in a way that is at least socially acceptable if not ideally preferable 15. The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) discovered this when its announcement of Amazon Alexa responding with guaranteed high-IQ content from NHS.UK to user voice queries such as “Alexa, how do I treat a migraine,” resulted in a public outcry over privacy infringement 16. This raises the question whether, in the context of online vaccination information, it is possible at all to balance concerns about user privacy and IQ. The following pages seek to lay the foundations for answering this question by reporting on the methodology for, and results of, a study concerning the following research question: “What is the current relationship between search engines’ approach to privacy and the scientific quality of the information they return?”.

Online Information of Vaccines: Abstract and Introduction

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Conclusion Our analysis shows that while it may well be technically possible to design a search engine that manages to balance privacy-preservation with the promotion of high IQ material, this is currently not the case. The current relationship between privacy-preserving design features of search engines and the IQ of the results they return is inverse (although not proportionally). In instances where this can have a negative impact on public health, as in the example we have provided of the promotion of anti-vaccine misinformation, not intervening to alter the design of the algorithm even if this means sacrificing some degree of user privacy - can lead to severe harm for a large population of user and is, therefore, unethical. Designing a search engine that is privacy savvy and avoids issues with filter bubbles that can result from user-tracking may be a good thing, like designing a car with an engine that does not pollute and is inexpensive to run, and designers should seek to balance the different aspects of search engine design highlighted in Figure 3. However, if the brakes in an environmentally-designed car do not work, the car is unsafe and this negates the positive ethical decisions made by the designers. In a car this is a highly unlikely design outcome, as a car has to undergo several rounds of testing by regulatory agencies before being allowed on the market. This is not yet the case for search engines, which are only regulated from the perspective of data protection – which is primarily interpreted as data security rather than data privacy. Our study suggests that this is necessary but insufficient, and instead mechanisms should be developed to test search engines from the perspective of IQ, (particularly for YMYL webpages) before they can be deemed trustworthy providers of public health information. References 1. World Health Organization. Ten threats to global health in 2019. 2019. https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20190627111040/https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-toglobal-health-in-2019) (accessed 27/06/2019 2. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351(9103): 637-41. 3. Stahl JP, Cohen R, Denis F, et al. The impact of the web and social networks on vaccination. New challenges and opportunities offered to fight against vaccine hesitancy. Med Mal Infect 2016; 46(3): 117-22. 4. Martin GP, Sutton E, Willars J, Dixon-Woods M. Frameworks for change in healthcare organisations: a formative evaluation of the NHS Change Model. Health Serv Manage Res 2013; 26(2-3): 65-75. 5. Illari P, Floridi L. Information quality, data and philosophy. The Philosophy of Information Quality: Springer; 2014: 5-23. 6. Al-Jefri M, Evans R, Uchyigit G, Ghezzi P. What is health information quality? Ethical dimension and perception by users. Frontiers in medicine 2018; 5. 7. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res 2006; 8(4): e27. 8. Chen X, Hay JL, Waters EA, et al. Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information. J Health Commun 2018; 23(8): 724-34. 9. Paige SR, Krieger JL, Stellefson ML. The Influence of eHealth Literacy on Perceived Trust in Online Health Communication Channels and Sources. J Health Commun 2017; 22(1): 53-65. 10. Kim J, Park HA. Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers' health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14(5): e133. 11. Borah P, Xiao X. The Importance of 'Likes': The Interplay of Message Framing, Source, and Social Endorsement on Credibility Perceptions of Health Information on Facebook. J Health Commun 2018; 23(4): 399-411. 12. Huo C, Zhang M, Ma F. Factors influencing people’s health knowledge adoption in social media: the mediating effect of trust and the moderating effect of health threat. Library Hi Tech 2018; 36(1): 129-51. 13. Chiou L, Tucker C. Search engines and data retention: Implications for privacy and antitrust: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 14. Esteve A. The business of personal data: Google, Facebook, and privacy issues in the EU and the USA. International Data Privacy Law 2017; 7(1): 36-47. 15. Floridi L, Taddeo M. What is data ethics? : The Royal Society; 2016. 16. Moskvitch K. Amazon’s Alexa deal with the NHS can help patients but at what cost? Wired, 2019. (accessed 8/11/2019). 17. Arif N, Al-Jefri M, Bizzi IH, et al. Fake News or Weak Science? Visibility and Characterization of Antivaccine Webpages Returned by Google in Different Languages and Countries. Front Immunol 2018; 9: 1215. 18. Maki A, Evans R, Ghezzi P. Bad news. Analysis of the quality of information on influenza prevention returned by Google in English and Italian. Frontiers in Immunology 2015; 6:616. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00616. 19. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. 20. Economist T. Seek and you shall find. Google rewards reputable reporting, not left-wing politics. The Economist 2019; 431(9146): 85. 21. Taddeo M, Floridi L. The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Science and engineering ethics 2015: 1-29. 22. Mittelstadt BD, Allo P, Taddeo M, Wachter S, Floridi L. The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society 2016; 3(2): 2053951716679679. 23. Association for Computing Machinery. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. 2018. https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20190627114921/https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics) (accessed 27/06/2019 2019). 24. Tufekci Z. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colo Tech LJ 2015; 13: 203. 25. Hasnas J. Teaching business ethics: The principles approach. Journal of Business Ethics Education 2013; 10: 275-304. 26. Macdonald C, Gavura S. Alternative Medicine and the Ethics Of Commerce. Bioethics 2016; 30(2): 77-84. 27. Taddeo M, Floridi L. The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Sci Eng Ethics 2016; 22(6): 1575-603. 28. Chigwedere P, Seage GR, 3rd, Gruskin S, Lee TH, Essex M. Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2008; 49(4): 410-5. 29. Ouyang Y. Student's death highlights gaps in China's health regulations. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17(6): 709. 30. Browne M, Thomson P, Rockloff MJ, Pennycook G. Going against the Herd: Psychological and Cultural Factors Underlying the 'Vaccination Confidence Gap'. PLoS One 2015; 10(9): e0132562. 31. Bean SJ. Emerging and continuing trends in vaccine opposition website content. Vaccine 2011; 29(10): 1874-80.

Online Information of Vaccines: Conclusion and References

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Discussion The aim of this research was to investigate whether search engines focused on privacy preservation ranked webpages with higher and/or lower levels of IQ (interpreted as EBM based content i.e. vaccine-positive rather than vaccine-negative) differently to the primary commercial search engines. In turn, this answered the research question “What is the current relationship between search engines’ approach to privacy and the scientific quality of the information they return?”. The results indicate that currently privacy-enhancing search engines often give more visibility to webpages promoting vaccine hesitancy or with a clear anti-vaccine position than Google. This is in agreement with the findings from a recent study by the Economist which analyzed 175,000 news links returned by Google to demonstrate that the search engine’s algorithm favorstrustworthy publications 20. Reputation and trustworthiness are key factors included in Google’s ranking algorithm. In 2019, Google published search quality evaluation guidelines, 4 which define webpages containing information that may affect the users’ health or financial stability, as “your money your life” (YMYL) pages. These guidelines reveal that when rating YMYL webpages, Google looks at the three criteria of Expertise-Authority-Trustworthiness (EA-T) and states “High E-A-T information pages on scientific topics should be produced by people or organizations with appropriate scientific expertise and represent well-established scientific consensus on issues where such consensus exists”. Thus, in the case of Google, the bandwagon heuristic mechanism of assessing medical information credibility is working in favour of promoting IQ. This is perhaps because those responsible for driving up the ‘reputation’ of specific websites by, for example, linking to them, have higher levels of eHealth literacy and therefore act as pseudo-gatekeepers protecting those with lower eHealth literacy from poor IQ results by ensuring that websites providing inaccurate online health information have a low ranking in the search results. In the case of privacy-preserving engines this appears not to be working – potentially because they do not track ‘reputation’ factors, which could be seen as proxies for IQ and credibility, e.g. clicks and bounce-rate, and so have no gatekeepers (pseudo or otherwise) working to limit the circulation of misinformation. To our knowledge, the algorithms used by these ‘alternative’ search engines are not public - Qwant states that they use their own algorithms5 - but despite this, we found a large overlap between the SERP of Qwant and those of Bing and Ecosia. Likewise, Ecosia and Swisscows showed a similar overlap (70%) with Bing. This means that it is not possible to check what factors determine the outcome of the decision making processes of the search engines algorithms, and hence identify those elements that contribute to circulate misinformation. Even without being able to check the exact mechanisms for the overall poorer results, the results suggest that, currently, decisions made by search engines to prioritize privacypreservation may have a negative impact on the IQ of results returned to users in health contexts. The pledge to provide independent and unbiased results or not to promote or hide websites based on political or moral interests can be seen as ethically ambiguous, in view of the potential consequences of pointing to scientifically unsound health information. Medical ethics requires that patients give informed consent before treatment and must, therefore, be informed accurately of the risks and benefits associated with treatment, something that is not possible if the search engine provider used by an individual is returning results with low IQ. From this consequentialist perspective, it is inherently unethical choosing not to interfere with a search engine’s ranking algorithm to ensure ‘manually’ that results of higher IQ are prioritized, whilst those of lower IQ are suppressed. This builds on arguments already made in the wider literature about algorithm ethics 21,22. For example, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) code of ethics and professional conduct includes, as a general principle, “avoid harm” along with that of “respect privacy” 23, which aligns with the Hippocratic oath. Specifically, the implication that the current design of privacy-preserving search engine algorithms underestimates the need for evaluation of IQ fits into the wider discussion about algorithmic design and how to ensure design decisions are made to protect and incorporate key values such as IQ. It is necessary, but insufficient, to design search engine algorithms that index purely on ‘relevance’, they must also be designed to index on quality. The challenge lies in the ability to do this in a way that balances the need to accept different perspectives (particularly those that are rooted in different cultural, religious or social ideals) whilst also filtering for IQ. Supporters of such arguments, including the authors, note that this requirement necessitates making the workings of search engine algorithms more transparent 24 to ensure their ethical compliance. Providing information on vaccines that is based on misinformation or disinformation (including studies whose data or conclusions have been shown to be wrong) is a deceptive practice, which goes against the basic tenets of medical and business ethics 25. This is in line with those who argue that the promotion of ‘alternative medicine’ is unethical because it lacks evidence and transparency of clinical efficacy and should be considered ‘false advertising’ 26. Online service providers have a moral responsibilities to ensure that users access health information that is scientifically validate 27. Misinformation and disinformation concerning healthcare circulating on the internet can have severe consequences and lead to widespread harm. Consider the example of South African president Mbeki, who delayed introducing anti-retroviral drugs in favor of alternative medicine based on information obtained from HIV-denialist internet websites, a decision estimated to have resulted in over 300,000 deaths 28. More recently, a cancer patient died in China after following an alternative, non-approved therapy they found using a search engine 29. In response Chinese authorities issued new rules that require search engines to provide “objective, fair and authoritative results”. Moral responsibility follows on the level of harm that misinformation and disinformation on healthcare may cause. It could be argued that there is a greater onus on Google – and other commercial search engine providers – than on alternative search engines to take these considerations into account when designing or interfering with algorithms for the purposes of promoting ethical compliance, given their larger market share. Google currently has over 90% of the worldwide market share6 and therefore has the potential to indirectly ‘cause harm’, through the potential promotion of low IQ webpages on vaccinations, to a great many more people than any of the alternative providers. However, studies have shown that those who hold anti-authoritarian views, openness to (potentially) controversial opinions, and an interest in alternative medicine are, in some cases, already more likely to hold vaccine-hesitant beliefs 30. These are also the individuals who are most likely to use alternative search providers given their sensitivity to privacy and tracking concerns. Therefore, while the alternative providers might reach a proportionally smaller audience – they are reaching an audience that is already more receptive to antivaccine information 31, and therefore more vulnerable to its effects. In other words, unless the alternative providers take steps to rank vaccine-related search results according to IQ, they may cause greater harm to those they do reach, meaning that the net negative impact is still greater even though the number of individuals they reach is smaller.

Online Information of Vaccines: Discussion

Medical Software Testing 101: Advice to Consider for Upgrading Patient Experiences 

Authors:
(1) Prabath Jayatissa, University of Colombo
(2) Roshan Hewapathirane, University of Colombo Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion & References 4. CONCLUSION Interoperability among health information systems is crucial for improving healthcare delivery in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where access to quality healthcare is often limited. However, achieving interoperability in LMICs faces challenges such as limited resources, fragmented health information systems, and diverse health IT infrastructure. Strategies such as standardisation, consolidation, investment in health IT infrastructure, capacity building, and addressing data privacy and security concerns can enhance interoperability efforts. Collaborative efforts among governments, non-profit organisations, the private sector, and other stakeholders are essential for overcoming challenges and promoting interoperability in LMICs. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of these strategies and identify novel approaches that are specific to the unique challenges faced by different regions and contexts within LMICs. Research on the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of interoperable health information systems is also crucial. Significant challenges include the need for more standardisation, fragmented health information systems, limited resources, and data privacy concerns. However, strategies such as standardisation, consolidation, investment in health IT infrastructure, and capacity building can help overcome them. Collaborative efforts are needed to address the multifaceted challenges of interoperability in LMICs and implement effective strategies. Further research and collaborative efforts are required to address the unique needs and contexts of LMICs and unlock the potential of health information systems to improve healthcare outcomes and advance health systems towards more integrated, patient-centred, and data-driven care in LMICs. REFERENCES [1] Adler-Milstein, J., DesRoches, C. M., Kralovec, P., Foster, G., Worzala, C., Charles, D., & Searcy, T. (2013). Electronic health record adoption in US hospitals: progress continues, but challenges persist. Health Affairs, 32(8), 1478-1485. [2] Adefioye, O. A., Adeleke, I. T., & Adewumi, A. O. (2019). Interoperability of health information systems in low-income countries: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19(1), 16. [3] Blaya, J. A., Fraser, H. S., & Holt, B. (2017). E-health technologies show promise in developing countries. Health Affairs, 36(12), 2168-2175. [4] Braa, J., Sahay, S., & Westerlund, M. (2017). The role of participatory design in strengthening community-based health information systems: a case study from Mozambique. Health Informatics Journal, 23(3), 180-189. [5] Kamadjeu, R. (2019). Impact of interoperability among electronic health records in low-resource settings: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 123, 27-34. [6] Karim, A. M., Ahsan, H., & Uddin, M. J. (2019). Interoperability in e-Health: A Systematic Literature Review. Health and Technology, 9(4), 687-697. [7] Seebregts, C. J., Mamlin, B. W., Biondich, P. G., Fraser, H. S., & Wolfe, B. A. (2017). Human factor considerations in developing and implementing information and communication technologies for health in low-resource settings. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 26(01), 123-130. [8] Sharma, A., Wickramasinghe, N., & Gupta, D. (2017). Leveraging the capabilities of electronic health records for enhancing decision-making processes in low-resource settings: a literature review. Health Informatics Journal, 23(2), 89-99. [9] W G P T Jayatissa, Vajira HWD, Roshan H. Review of Master Patient Index. Dent Res Int J DRIJ. 2017;3(2):37–48. https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.00451 [10] Tchouaket, É. N., Charrier, R., & Henry, S. (2019). Addressing the lack of interoperability among health information systems in low-income countries: a socio-technical approach. Health and Technology, 9(5), 729-742. [11] Blaya, J.A., Fraser, H.S.F., Holt, B. (2017). E-health interoperability. In: Marschollek, M., Bauer, A., Wolf, K.H., Gradinger, M., eds. eHealth2016 - Health Informatics Meets eHealth: From Sensors to Decisions. IOS Press, pp. 9-14. [12] Tchouaket, É.N., Moine, M.P., Adedokun, A., et al. (2019). Challenges to Interoperability of Health Information Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Literature Review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 264, pp. 1399-1403. [13] Adler-Milstein, J., Jha, A.K. (2013). Sharing Clinical Data Electronically: A Critical Challenge for Fixing the Health Care System. JAMA, 309(10), pp. 991-992. [14] Kamadjeu, R. (2019). Challenges of Implementing eHealth in Developing Countries: An Example of a Web-Based Asynchronous Telemedicine System. Health Informatics Journal, 25(1), pp. 62-71. [15] Sharma, A., Kamadjeu, R., Mirza, S., et al. (2017). Development of a National Health Information System in a Resource-Limited Setting: A Case Study from Liberia. Health Informatics Journal, 23(4), pp. 295-306. [16] Jayatissa P, Vajira HWD, Roshan H. Developing a functional prototype Master Patient Index (MPI) for interoperability of E-Health systems in Seri Lanka. Dent Res Int J DRIJ. 2017;2(2):9–26. https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.00451 [17] Seebregts, C.J., Mamlin, B.W., Biondich, P.G., et al. (2017). The OpenMRS Implementers Network. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 108, pp. 117-121. [18] Adefioye, O.A., Asaolu, I.O., Ajayi, T.A., et al. (2019). Ethical and Legal Issues in Health Information Exchange in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), pp. 84. [19] Braa, J., Hanseth, O., Mohammed, W., et al. (2017). Developing Health Information Systems in Developing Countries: The Flexible Standards Strategy. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), pp. 309-322. [20] Karim, A.M., Nematzadeh, A., Gombera, F., et al. (2019). eHealth in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Findings from the Center for Health Market Innovations. Health Affairs, 38(5), pp. 711- 718. [21] Jayatissa P, Hewapatirane R. Development of Minimum Clinical Data Set For Master Patient Index(MPI) for Sri Lankan Context. https://airccse.com/drij/papers/4422drij01.pdf .2022 Nov 1;4(4):1–18. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Prabath Jayatissa, University of Colombo (2) Roshan Hewapathirane, University of Colombo Authors: Authors: (1) Prabath Jayatissa, University of Colombo (2) Roshan Hewapathirane, University of Colombo Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Abstract & Introduction Methodology Methodology Results Results Conclusion & References Conclusion & References 4. CONCLUSION Interoperability among health information systems is crucial for improving healthcare delivery in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where access to quality healthcare is often limited. However, achieving interoperability in LMICs faces challenges such as limited resources, fragmented health information systems, and diverse health IT infrastructure. Strategies such as standardisation, consolidation, investment in health IT infrastructure, capacity building, and addressing data privacy and security concerns can enhance interoperability efforts. Collaborative efforts among governments, non-profit organisations, the private sector, and other stakeholders are essential for overcoming challenges and promoting interoperability in LMICs. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of these strategies and identify novel approaches that are specific to the unique challenges faced by different regions and contexts within LMICs. Research on the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of interoperable health information systems is also crucial. Significant challenges include the need for more standardisation, fragmented health information systems, limited resources, and data privacy concerns. However, strategies such as standardisation, consolidation, investment in health IT infrastructure, and capacity building can help overcome them. Collaborative efforts are needed to address the multifaceted challenges of interoperability in LMICs and implement effective strategies. Further research and collaborative efforts are required to address the unique needs and contexts of LMICs and unlock the potential of health information systems to improve healthcare outcomes and advance health systems towards more integrated, patient-centred, and data-driven care in LMICs. REFERENCES [1] Adler-Milstein, J., DesRoches, C. M., Kralovec, P., Foster, G., Worzala, C., Charles, D., & Searcy, T. (2013). Electronic health record adoption in US hospitals: progress continues, but challenges persist. Health Affairs, 32(8), 1478-1485. [2] Adefioye, O. A., Adeleke, I. T., & Adewumi, A. O. (2019). Interoperability of health information systems in low-income countries: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19(1), 16. [3] Blaya, J. A., Fraser, H. S., & Holt, B. (2017). E-health technologies show promise in developing countries. Health Affairs, 36(12), 2168-2175. [4] Braa, J., Sahay, S., & Westerlund, M. (2017). The role of participatory design in strengthening community-based health information systems: a case study from Mozambique. Health Informatics Journal, 23(3), 180-189. [5] Kamadjeu, R. (2019). Impact of interoperability among electronic health records in low-resource settings: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 123, 27-34. [6] Karim, A. M., Ahsan, H., & Uddin, M. J. (2019). Interoperability in e-Health: A Systematic Literature Review. Health and Technology, 9(4), 687-697. [7] Seebregts, C. J., Mamlin, B. W., Biondich, P. G., Fraser, H. S., & Wolfe, B. A. (2017). Human factor considerations in developing and implementing information and communication technologies for health in low-resource settings. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 26(01), 123-130. [8] Sharma, A., Wickramasinghe, N., & Gupta, D. (2017). Leveraging the capabilities of electronic health records for enhancing decision-making processes in low-resource settings: a literature review. Health Informatics Journal, 23(2), 89-99. [9] W G P T Jayatissa, Vajira HWD, Roshan H. Review of Master Patient Index. Dent Res Int J DRIJ. 2017;3(2):37–48. https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.00451 [10] Tchouaket, É. N., Charrier, R., & Henry, S. (2019). Addressing the lack of interoperability among health information systems in low-income countries: a socio-technical approach. Health and Technology, 9(5), 729-742. [11] Blaya, J.A., Fraser, H.S.F., Holt, B. (2017). E-health interoperability. In: Marschollek, M., Bauer, A., Wolf, K.H., Gradinger, M., eds. eHealth2016 - Health Informatics Meets eHealth: From Sensors to Decisions. IOS Press, pp. 9-14. [12] Tchouaket, É.N., Moine, M.P., Adedokun, A., et al. (2019). Challenges to Interoperability of Health Information Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Literature Review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 264, pp. 1399-1403. [13] Adler-Milstein, J., Jha, A.K. (2013). Sharing Clinical Data Electronically: A Critical Challenge for Fixing the Health Care System. JAMA, 309(10), pp. 991-992. [14] Kamadjeu, R. (2019). Challenges of Implementing eHealth in Developing Countries: An Example of a Web-Based Asynchronous Telemedicine System. Health Informatics Journal, 25(1), pp. 62-71. [15] Sharma, A., Kamadjeu, R., Mirza, S., et al. (2017). Development of a National Health Information System in a Resource-Limited Setting: A Case Study from Liberia. Health Informatics Journal, 23(4), pp. 295-306. [16] Jayatissa P, Vajira HWD, Roshan H. Developing a functional prototype Master Patient Index (MPI) for interoperability of E-Health systems in Seri Lanka. Dent Res Int J DRIJ. 2017;2(2):9–26. https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.00451 [17] Seebregts, C.J., Mamlin, B.W., Biondich, P.G., et al. (2017). The OpenMRS Implementers Network. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 108, pp. 117-121. [18] Adefioye, O.A., Asaolu, I.O., Ajayi, T.A., et al. (2019). Ethical and Legal Issues in Health Information Exchange in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), pp. 84. [19] Braa, J., Hanseth, O., Mohammed, W., et al. (2017). Developing Health Information Systems in Developing Countries: The Flexible Standards Strategy. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), pp. 309-322. [20] Karim, A.M., Nematzadeh, A., Gombera, F., et al. (2019). eHealth in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Findings from the Center for Health Market Innovations. Health Affairs, 38(5), pp. 711- 718. [21] Jayatissa P, Hewapatirane R. Development of Minimum Clinical Data Set For Master Patient Index(MPI) for Sri Lankan Context. https://airccse.com/drij/papers/4422drij01.pdf .2022 Nov 1;4(4):1–18. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. available on arxiv

Enhancing Interoperability in LMIC Healthcare Information Systems

Systems Interoperability Types: A Tertiary Study: Discussing the Results and What Comes Next

Software Engineering for OpenHarmony: The Research Roadmap

Every individual does their best to live a healthy life in their little way. Whether it be eating right, or maintaining proper hygiene. There is a constant struggle to balance that process but there seem to be a lot of things that hinder it. Some of these include pollution, economic stability, education access and quality, health care access and quality, and societal or neighborhood environment. All these pose a threat to an individual's healthy lifestyle, especially that of the social environment, although it is not the only aspect to look out for. Nevertheless, because it is usually overlooked, we must take note of it, as it is likely to negatively affect a person's health by leading to obesity, food poisoning, mental health issues and even higher risk of diseases. However, the technology methods and apps encourage healthier behavior in individuals and help health care personnel with the proactive management of a healthy lifestyle in people. Technological advancements like , have given rise to easy detection and diagnosis, quick decision making and treatment. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Notwithstanding, the has more influence on people than other factors, the reason being that it has to do with the way of life and relationship of an individual. That is, the environment such a person lives in, the person's occupation and income status, the level of education one has or perhaps the resources such a person has to access. social environment That is why people on the lower part of the social ladder are twice as likely to acquire a health condition. Also, a poor social environment can make an individual feel anxious, confused and stressed. What process does technology enhance a healthy lifestyle? The 21st century has created various solutions for the health industry whereby several technologies have been developed to assist the enhancement of the health of an individual. There is no doubt that the impact of technological advancement from cloud computing to artificial intelligence on our lives, in this century is rapidly becoming inevitable. Is it the internet that has become so vast? Or the evolving technologies like the Internet of Things(IoT)? Or even our phones, which we use to pass information to one another, and get in touch with our friends and family far and wide? The impact of technology is too numerous to count that people also use it to manage their health, otherwise known as eHealth, which is the use of information and communication technology(ICT) to benefit the healthcare and wellbeing of people. Hence, what type of technology can we use to improve our healthy lifestyle and healthcare in general? 1. Apps Apps are developed for a vast number of services like enjoyment (games), getting in touch with people (social media), and also assistance in making things easier and faster. There is no disagreement with the fact that have their importance in the healthcare industry which has been made possible by developers. apps The involvement of some technology like cloud computing, artificial intelligence (AI) and augmented reality (AR), makes it complex for developers. Nevertheless, the use of these six phases; strategize, plan, analyze and design, app development, test and deploy, help them in mobile app development. Individuals have used an app for their mental, physical or emotional health at least once. Some apps have been developed to help you to know in detail what your healthcare expert is talking about. This helps to tackle the problem that comes with engagement between the doctor and the patient, setting reminders and many more. 2. Wearable Devices These are devices that you can wear on your wrist or body or even attach to a piece of clothing. These belong to different categories, such as fitness, sport, health, and entertainment. Concerning the advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things(IoT), developers involved in software development, have implemented the current account of wearable devices in health care to function as an integrated electronic health record system. wearable devices Instances of some refined wearable technology include a holographic computer in the form of virtual reality (VR) headset, artificial intelligence (AI) hearing aids, Google Glass and Microsoft's HoloLens, to track your health progress or physical activity. In most cases, they are paired with your mobile phone or a website to track and reserve the real-time data collected. You might have seen people wearing devices like smartwatches. Well, they are technologies that are linked to apps for monitoring your health in terms of sleep, and heart rate while worn. The data collected for the day, week or month gives you insight into your health track, feedback, along with tips for becoming healthier, which can be shared with a health care provider. 3. Air Purifiers are technology products that can disinfect the air by removing allergens, toxins, viruses, bacteria and pollutants. They are different from essential oil diffusers and humidifiers, which on the other hand, add particles to indoor air. Air purifiers Also, an air purifier will not likely remove or neutralize all particles in your home or environment, unlike a filter. This is because many particles can stay on soft surfaces, such as furniture, bedding, and floor, as well as hard surfaces, such as your walls but it is possible to sanitize the pollutants. Thus, the innovation and advancement of technology have brought about the AI-based purification system and the HEPA filter. The application of these technologies into air purifiers would help in filtering the air. Developers have integrated built-in sensors, computing algorithms, and an advanced DC motor that maximizes the temperature of healthy breathable air in your home or environment and can sharply adjust to meet your uniqueness. Also, the AI system in the air purifier can connect to the internet via a Wi-Fi network for providing accurate air quality analysis. Health personnel have advised doctors' offices, dentist offices, exam rooms, and any area that has a high concentration of contaminants in the air and is frequented by people to have air purifiers. According to research, this action is said to decrease the spread of illnesses and reduce airborne and surface pollutants, germs and contaminants. Nevertheless, research shows that air purifiers work best with a filter by sanitizing and filtering the air. In other words, an air purifier works with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter and an Ultraviolet Light (UVC) whose function is to filter the air by trapping airborne pollutants, removing harmful particles and smoke in the area and also reducing the humidity level indoors. In Conclusion The process of has been made easy through technology. The health industry just as other industries have benefitted massively from the use of technology which on its end keeps evolving and getting better. enhancing a healthy lifestyle In other words, just as big data and IoT have been equipping the healthcare industry, AI and robotics have also been giving numerous potentials more efficiently than humans. The health industry does not doubt its new methods of working, even the technologies designed to keep us healthy, as every area of our lives has been impacted. It is important that we individuals have the right attitude to living a healthy lifestyle as that would make the effect and usage of technology easier and faster.

Stories, News & Mentions about ELIHEALTH

Elihealth’s Stories on HackerNoon

Elihealth's News & Mentions