Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
ACI open ; 5(1): e36-e46, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1830257

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Learning healthcare systems use routinely collected data to generate new evidence that informs future practice. While implementing an electronic health record (EHR) system can facilitate this goal for individual institutions, meaningfully aggregating data from multiple institutions can be more empowering. Cosmos is a cross-institution, single EHR vendor-facilitated data aggregation tool. This work aims to describe the initiative and illustrate its potential utility through several use cases. METHODS: Cosmos is designed to scale rapidly by leveraging preexisting agreements, clinical health information exchange networks, and data standards. Data are stored centrally as a limited dataset, but the customer facing query tool limits results to prevent patient reidentification. RESULTS: In 2 years, Cosmos grew to contain EHR data of more than 60 million patients. We present practical examples illustrating how Cosmos could further efforts in chronic disease surveillance (asthma and obesity), syndromic surveillance (seasonal influenza and the 2019 novel coronavirus), immunization adherence and adverse event reporting (human papilloma virus and measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccination), and health services research (antibiotic usage for upper respiratory infection). DISCUSSION: A low barrier of entry for Cosmos allows for the rapid accumulation of multi-institutional and mostly de-duplicated EHR data to power research and quality improvement queries characteristic of learning healthcare systems. Limitations are being vendor-specific, an "all or none" contribution model, and the lack of control over queries run on an institution's healthcare data. CONCLUSION: Cosmos provides a model for within-vendor data standardization and aggregation and a steppingstone for broader intervendor interoperability.

3.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e26302, 2021 02 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575865

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (ie, COVID-19) has given rise to a global pandemic affecting 215 countries and over 40 million people as of October 2020. Meanwhile, we are also experiencing an infodemic induced by the overabundance of information, some accurate and some inaccurate, spreading rapidly across social media platforms. Social media has arguably shifted the information acquisition and dissemination of a considerably large population of internet users toward higher interactivities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate COVID-19-related health beliefs on one of the mainstream social media platforms, Twitter, as well as potential impacting factors associated with fluctuations in health beliefs on social media. METHODS: We used COVID-19-related posts from the mainstream social media platform Twitter to monitor health beliefs. A total of 92,687,660 tweets corresponding to 8,967,986 unique users from January 6 to June 21, 2020, were retrieved. To quantify health beliefs, we employed the health belief model (HBM) with four core constructs: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers. We utilized natural language processing and machine learning techniques to automate the process of judging the conformity of each tweet with each of the four HBM constructs. A total of 5000 tweets were manually annotated for training the machine learning architectures. RESULTS: The machine learning classifiers yielded areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves over 0.86 for the classification of all four HBM constructs. Our analyses revealed a basic reproduction number R0 of 7.62 for trends in the number of Twitter users posting health belief-related content over the study period. The fluctuations in the number of health belief-related tweets could reflect dynamics in case and death statistics, systematic interventions, and public events. Specifically, we observed that scientific events, such as scientific publications, and nonscientific events, such as politicians' speeches, were comparable in their ability to influence health belief trends on social media through a Kruskal-Wallis test (P=.78 and P=.92 for perceived benefits and perceived barriers, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: As an analogy of the classic epidemiology model where an infection is considered to be spreading in a population with an R0 greater than 1, we found that the number of users tweeting about COVID-19 health beliefs was amplifying in an epidemic manner and could partially intensify the infodemic. It is "unhealthy" that both scientific and nonscientific events constitute no disparity in impacting the health belief trends on Twitter, since nonscientific events, such as politicians' speeches, might not be endorsed by substantial evidence and could sometimes be misleading.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Data Analysis , Health Education/statistics & numerical data , Machine Learning , Natural Language Processing , Public Opinion , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL