| Title |
Design of a Personal Health Record and Health Knowledge Sharing System Using IHE-XDS and OWL
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-012-9921-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li-Hui Lee, Yi-Ting Chou, Ean-Wen Huang, Der-Ming Liou |
| Abstract |
Personal Health Record systems (PHRs) provide opportunities for patients to access their own PHR. However, PHRs are teeming with medical terminologies, such as disease and symptom names, etc. Patients need readily understandable and useful health knowledge in addition to their records in order to enhance their self-care ability. This study describes a Personal Health Record and Health Knowledge Sharing System (PHR&HKS) whereby users not only can maintain and import their PHR, but also can collate useful health Web resources that are related to their personal diseases. Furthermore, they can share the collated Web resources with any user with the same diseases and vice versa. To fulfill these objectives, IHE Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing (XDS) architecture was adopted to share and integrate the PHR. A registry ontology, consisting of part of the XDS document metadata attributes, the ICD-9-CM code, and part of the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES), was created to enhance the health knowledge collating and sharing functions. The system was then tested and evaluated by 30 users. Among these individuals, 24 (81 %) held positive views on the ease of use and usefulness of the system while the remainder, who held either neutral (14 %) or negative (5 %) attitudes, were identified as individuals who were somewhat unwilling to maintain any PHR or share any information with others. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 29 | 44% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2013.
All research outputs
#18,327,422
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#804
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,892
of 306,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.