ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2710-3259
Current Organisations
Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS
,
University of Illinois at Chicago
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 24-10-2023
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 31-10-2022
DOI: 10.2196/37980
Abstract: The terms health app and medical app are often used interchangeably but do not necessarily mean the same thing. To better understand these terms and better regulate such technologies, we need distinct definitions of health and medical apps. This study aimed to provide an overview of the definitions of health and medical apps from an interdisciplinary perspective. We summarized the core elements of the identified definitions for their holistic understanding in the context of digital public health. The legal frameworks for medical device regulation in the United States, the European Union, and Germany formed the basis of this study. We then searched 6 databases for articles defining health or medical apps from an interdisciplinary perspective. The narrative literature review was supported by a forward and backward snowball search for more original definitions of health and medical apps. A qualitative analysis was conducted on the identified relevant aspects and core elements of each definition. On the basis of these findings, we developed a holistic definition of health and medical apps and created a decision flowchart to highlight the differences between the 2 types. The legal framework showed that medical apps could be regulated as mobile medical devices, whereas there is no legal term for health apps. Our narrative literature review identified 204 peer-reviewed publications that offered a definition of health and medical apps. After screening for original definitions and applying the snowball method, 11.8% (24/204) of the publications were included in the qualitative analysis. Of these 24 publications, 22 (88%) provided an original definition of health apps and 11 (44%) described medical apps. The literature suggests that medical apps are a part of health apps. To describe health or medical apps, most definitions used the user group, a description of health, the device, the legal regulation, collected data, or technological functions. However, the regulation should not be a distinction criterion as it requires legal knowledge, which is neither suitable nor practical. An app’s intended medical or health use enables a clear differentiation between health and medical apps. Ultimately, the health aim of an app and its main target group are the only distinction criteria. Health apps are software programs on mobile devices that process health-related data on or for their users. They can be used by every health-conscious person to maintain, improve, or manage the health of an in idual or the community. As an umbrella term, health apps include medical apps. Medical apps share the same technological functions and devices. Health professionals, patients, and family caregivers are the main user groups. Medical apps are intended for clinical and medical purposes and can be legally regulated as mobile medical devices.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 06-09-2021
Abstract: apid developments and implementation of digital technologies in public health domains throughout the last decades have changed the landscape of health delivery and disease prevention globally. A growing number of countries are introducing interventions such as online consultations, electronic health records, or telemedicine to their health systems to improve their populations’ health and improve access to health care. Despite multiple definitions for digital public health and the development of different digital interventions, no study has analyzed whether the utilized technologies fit the definition or the core characteristics of digital public health interventions. A scoping review is therefore needed to explore the extent of the literature on this topic. he main aim of this scoping review is to outline real-world digital public health interventions on all levels of health care, prevention, and health. The second objective will be the mapping of reported intervention characteristics. These will include nontechnical elements and the technical features of an intervention. e searched for relevant literature in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Xplore, and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Full-Text Collection. All original study types (observational studies, experimental trials, qualitative studies, and health-economic analyses), as well as governmental reports, books, book chapters, or peer-reviewed full-text conference papers were included when the evaluation and description of a digital health intervention was the primary intervention component. Two authors screened the articles independently in three stages (title, abstract, and full text). Two independent authors will also perform the data charting. We will report our results following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. n additional systematic search in IEEE Xplore and ACM, performed on December 1, 2021, identified another 491 titles. We identified a total of 13,869 papers after deduplication. As of March 2022, the abstract screening state is complete, and we are in the state of screening the 1417 selected full texts for final inclusion. We estimate completing the review in April 2022. o our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to fill the theoretical definitions of digital public health with concrete interventions and their characteristics. Our scoping review will display the landscape of worldwide existing digital public health interventions that use information and communication technologies. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in early 2022, which can serve as a blueprint for the development of future digital public health interventions. ERR1-10.2196/33404
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 08-2020
Abstract: The combination of measurements of the W boson polarization in top quark decays performed by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations is presented. The measurements are based on proton-proton collision data produced at the LHC at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV, and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of about 20 fb − 1 for each experiment. The measurements used events containing one lepton and having different jet multiplicities in the final state. The results are quoted as fractions of W bosons with longitudinal ( F 0 ), left-handed ( F L ), or right-handed ( F R ) polarizations. The resulting combined measurements of the polarization fractions are F 0 = 0 . 693 ± 0 . 014 and F L = 0 . 315 ± 0 . 011. The fraction F R is calculated from the unitarity constraint to be F R = − 0 . 008 ± 0 . 007. These results are in agreement with the standard model predictions at next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative quantum chromodynamics and represent an improvement in precision of 25 (29)% for F 0 ( F L ) with respect to the most precise single measurement. A limit on anomalous right-handed vector ( V R ), and left- and right-handed tensor ( g L , g R ) tWb couplings is set while fixing all others to their standard model values. The allowed regions are [ − 0 . 11 , 0 . 16] for V R , [ − 0 . 08 , 0 . 05] for g L , and [ − 0 . 04 , 0 . 02] for g R , at 95% confidence level. Limits on the corresponding Wilson coefficients are also derived.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 14-03-2022
Abstract: he terms health app and medical app are often used interchangeably but do not necessarily mean the same. To better understand these terms and better regulate such technologies, we need distinct definitions of health and medical apps. Therefore, this paper aims to overview definitions for health and medical apps from an interdisciplinary perspective. We summarize core elements of identified definitions for their holistic understanding in the context of digital public health. his paper aims to overview definitions for health and medical apps from an interdisciplinary perspective. We summarize core elements of identified definitions for their holistic understanding in the context of digital public health. he legal frameworks for medical device regulation in the US, the European Union, and Germany form the base of this paper. We then searched six databases for articles defining health or medical apps from an interdisciplinary perspective. Qualitative analysis was conducted on identified relevant aspects and core elements of each definition. Based on the findings, we developed a holistic definition of health and medical apps and created a decision flow chart to highlight the differences between the two types. he legal framework showed that medical apps could be regulated as mobile medical devices, while there is no legal term for health apps. Our review identified 22 peer-reviewed papers defining health apps and 11 describing medical apps. The literature suggests that medical apps are a part of health apps. For describing health or medical apps, most definitions used the user group, a description of health, the device, the legal regulation, collected data, or technological functions. ealth and medical apps can share the same device, collect health data, and have similar technological functions, making these criteria indeterminative for differentiation. The regulation should also not be a distinction criterion, as it requires legal knowledge, which is neither suitable nor practical. However, there is a difference in the main user group as medical apps address health professionals, patients, and family caregivers rather than health-conscious people. Additionally, an app's intended medical or health use enables a clear differentiation between health and medical apps. Ultimately, the health aim of an app and its main target group are the only distinction criteria. To conclude, health apps are software programs on mobile devices that process health-related data on/for their user. They can be used by every health-conscious person to maintain, improve or manage the health of an in idual or the community. As an umbrella term, health apps include medical apps. Medical apps share the same technological functions and devices. Health professionals, patients, and family caregivers are the main user groups. Medical apps are intended for clinical and medical purposes and can legally be regulated as mobile medical devices.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 31-03-2022
DOI: 10.2196/33404
Abstract: Rapid developments and implementation of digital technologies in public health domains throughout the last decades have changed the landscape of health delivery and disease prevention globally. A growing number of countries are introducing interventions such as online consultations, electronic health records, or telemedicine to their health systems to improve their populations’ health and improve access to health care. Despite multiple definitions for digital public health and the development of different digital interventions, no study has analyzed whether the utilized technologies fit the definition or the core characteristics of digital public health interventions. A scoping review is therefore needed to explore the extent of the literature on this topic. The main aim of this scoping review is to outline real-world digital public health interventions on all levels of health care, prevention, and health. The second objective will be the mapping of reported intervention characteristics. These will include nontechnical elements and the technical features of an intervention. We searched for relevant literature in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Xplore, and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Full-Text Collection. All original study types (observational studies, experimental trials, qualitative studies, and health-economic analyses), as well as governmental reports, books, book chapters, or peer-reviewed full-text conference papers were included when the evaluation and description of a digital health intervention was the primary intervention component. Two authors screened the articles independently in three stages (title, abstract, and full text). Two independent authors will also perform the data charting. We will report our results following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. An additional systematic search in IEEE Xplore and ACM, performed on December 1, 2021, identified another 491 titles. We identified a total of 13,869 papers after deduplication. As of March 2022, the abstract screening state is complete, and we are in the state of screening the 1417 selected full texts for final inclusion. We estimate completing the review in April 2022. To our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to fill the theoretical definitions of digital public health with concrete interventions and their characteristics. Our scoping review will display the landscape of worldwide existing digital public health interventions that use information and communication technologies. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in early 2022, which can serve as a blueprint for the development of future digital public health interventions. DERR1-10.2196/33404
Location: Germany
Location: Brazil
No related grants have been discovered for Chen-Chia Pan.