Skip header and navigation

Refine By

   MORE

13 records – page 1 of 2.

Norway's ICT Accessibility Legislation, Methods and Indicators.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature291059
Source
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016; 229:471-81
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
2016
Author
Malin Rygg
Dagfinn Rømen
Brynhild Runa Sterri
Author Affiliation
Norwegian Authority for Universal Design of ICT, Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (Difi), Norway.
Source
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016; 229:471-81
Date
2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Communication
Information Technology - legislation & jurisprudence
Norway
Abstract
This paper gives an overview of the Norwegian legislation on Universal Design of information and communication technology (ICT) and how the Norwegian Authority for Universal Design of ICT works to enforce and achieve the goals behind the legislation. The Authority uses indicators to check websites for compliance with the regulations. This paper describes the rationale and intended use for the indicators and how they are used for both supervision and benchmarks as well as a way of gathering data to give an overview of the current state of Universal Design of websites in Norway.
PubMed ID
27534342 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Norwegian health data - an inaccessible treasure].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature280573
Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2016 10;136(18):1506
Publication Type
Article
Date
10-2016
Author
Knut Erik Emberland
Guri Rørtveit
Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2016 10;136(18):1506
Date
10-2016
Language
Norwegian
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Biomedical research
Humans
Norway
Registries - standards
PubMed ID
27731584 View in PubMed
Less detail

Canada clamps down on access to drug safety data.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature118602
Source
Lancet. 2012 Nov 24;380(9856):1805
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-24-2012
Author
Paul C Webster
Source
Lancet. 2012 Nov 24;380(9856):1805
Date
Nov-24-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
British Columbia
Drug Evaluation
Humans
Safety
PubMed ID
23189329 View in PubMed
Less detail

Federal government unveils modest transparency initiative.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature136007
Source
CMAJ. 2011 Apr 19;183(7):E383-4
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-19-2011
Source
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013 Apr;35(4):299-302
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-2013

CMAJ 2011 election survey: transparency.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature134779
Source
CMAJ. 2011 Jun 14;183(9):E513-4
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-14-2011

Genomic Databases and Biobanks in Denmark.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature280292
Source
J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43(4):743-53
Publication Type
Article
Date
2015
Author
Mette Hartlev
Source
J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43(4):743-53
Date
2015
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Biological Specimen Banks - legislation & jurisprudence
Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence
Databases, Genetic - legislation & jurisprudence
Denmark
Genetic Research - legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
Abstract
Biobanking in Denmark is regulated via patients' rights laws, data protection laws, and research ethics reviews. Danish law recognizes tissue samples as personal data for purposes of the data protection laws, meaning research with tissue samples may be subject to research ethics review, data protection laws, and patients' rights requirements depending on the circumstances of collection. However, research on information gained through whole genome sequencing is subject only to data protection laws, despite the similarity in the nature of the information. The regulatory framework treats biobank samples collected from patients differently than samples collected from research participants, particularly with respect to autonomy. Importantly, biobanks established for future unspecified research are not subject to research ethics review. Biobank-based research has gained more prominence on the national level recently, and the potential for a less fragmented and more consistent regulatory approach may emerge from this attention.
PubMed ID
26711414 View in PubMed
Less detail

Attitudes about donor information differ greatly between IVF couples using their own gametes and those receiving or donating oocytes or sperm.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature280849
Source
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):703-10
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-2016
Author
Agneta Skoog Svanberg
G. Sydsjö
M. Bladh
C. Lampic
Source
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):703-10
Date
Jun-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Adolescent
Adult
Attitude
Family Characteristics
Female
Fertilization in Vitro - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Oocyte Donation - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Spermatozoa
Sweden
Tissue Donors - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Abstract
The objective of the study is to examine attitudes towards aspects of donation treatment based on a national Swedish sample of gamete donors and couples undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).
The present study was part of the Swedish study on gamete donation, a prospective longitudinal cohort study including all fertility clinics performing gamete donation in Sweden. The sample comprised 164 oocyte donors, 89 sperm donors, 251 people treated with their own gametes (in vitro fertilisation (IVF)), 213 oocyte recipients and 487 sperm recipients. A study-specific questionnaire was used.
Attitudes vary widely between couples using their own gametes for IVF and those receiving or donating oocyte or sperm. The groups differed in their responses to most questions. Oocyte and sperm donors were more likely to agree with the statements "The donor should be informed if the donation results in a child" and "Offspring should receive some information about the donor during mature adolescence" than recipients of donated gametes and couples treated with their own gametes.
Donor recipients, IVF couples and donors expressed different attitudes towards openness and information when it came to gamete donation, and those differences seemed to depend on their current reproductive situation.
Notes
Cites: Med J Aust. 2003 Feb 3;178(3):127-912558484
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2013 Sep;28(9):2432-923756704
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2004 Oct;19(10):2415-915310730
Cites: Public Underst Sci. 2009 Jan;18(1):61-7719579535
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2009 Aug;24(8):1930-819414865
Cites: Ups J Med Sci. 2013 Aug;118(3):187-9523786323
Cites: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009 May;26(5):231-819472047
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2008 Apr;23(4):904-1118258766
Cites: Psychol Health. 2011 Sep;26(9):1113-2721929476
PubMed ID
27059774 View in PubMed
Less detail

Shared Electronic Health Record Systems: Key Legal and Security Challenges.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature292507
Source
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Nov; 11(6):1234-1239
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
Nov-2017
Author
Ellen K Christiansen
Eva Skipenes
Marie F Hausken
Svein Skeie
Truls Østbye
Marjolein M Iversen
Author Affiliation
1 Norwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, University Hospital of North Norway (UNN), Tromsø, Norway.
Source
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Nov; 11(6):1234-1239
Date
Nov-2017
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Computer Security - legislation & jurisprudence
Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence
Electronic Health Records - legislation & jurisprudence
Health Policy
Humans
Information Dissemination - legislation & jurisprudence
Norway
Patient care team
Policy Making
Telemedicine - legislation & jurisprudence
Ulcer - diagnosis - therapy
Abstract
Use of shared electronic health records opens a whole range of new possibilities for flexible and fruitful cooperation among health personnel in different health institutions, to the benefit of the patients. There are, however, unsolved legal and security challenges. The overall aim of this article is to highlight legal and security challenges that should be considered before using shared electronic cooperation platforms and health record systems to avoid legal and security "surprises" subsequent to the implementation. Practical lessons learned from the use of a web-based ulcer record system involving patients, community nurses, GPs, and hospital nurses and doctors in specialist health care are used to illustrate challenges we faced. Discussion of possible legal and security challenges is critical for successful implementation of shared electronic collaboration systems. Key challenges include (1) allocation of responsibility, (2) documentation routines, (3) and integrated or federated access control. We discuss and suggest how challenges of legal and security aspects can be handled. This discussion may be useful for both current and future users, as well as policy makers.
Notes
Cites: J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011 May 01;5(3):768-77 PMID 21722592
Cites: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:417-21 PMID 21893784
Cites: JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Jul 18;5(3):e148 PMID 27430301
PubMed ID
28560899 View in PubMed
Less detail

13 records – page 1 of 2.