Skip header and navigation

Refine By

3 records – page 1 of 1.

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

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