Search

The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Guidance Framework for the Responsible Use of the Life Sciences addresses the governance of biorisks, including dual-use research, for countries. It emphasizes engaging multisectoral stakeholders such as governments, scientific bodies, health and research institutes, standard-setting organizations, funding bodies, and others. Ethics constitutes a key component of the framework. Given the high social impact of such research and the importance of trust, risk, and benefit, national ethics committees could make a valuable contribution by providing ethical guidance in the decisionmaking process. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of national ethics committees in the context of governance and oversight of dual-use research at the national level. We conducted a landscape analysis of the activities of ethics committees in dual-use research oversight. We also searched the WHO database on National Ethics Committees for publications related to dual-use research and/or misuse of life sciences research and gathered additional documentation from national ethics committees websites and through author contacts. Results showed that in the context of the wide range of oversight mechanisms for dual-use research in countries, national ethics committees have contributed to guiding policy and assessing dual-use research risks in only a limited number of countries. Recommendations from those countries include establishing a multistakeholder, coordinated oversight mechanism at the country level; strengthening international linkages to guide, harmonize, and reinforce national and international efforts; and involving ethics committees as an expert resource in the governance and oversight process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, there has been growing enthusiasm for data analytics as well as growing appreciation of the potential usefulness of so-called big data in transforming personal care, clinical [...]

Reports on the lessons being learned from the Health InterNetwork in India. Pilot project which is now providing public and non-profit health institutions in 113 countries with free or low cost access to over 2300 biomedical journals; Health InterNetwork India which was a pilot programmes to show the value of integrating information technology into public health practice; Background on HIN India; Objectives; Achievements and lessons from HIN India; Capacity building and how India tackled it; Local policies and customs which sometimes interfered with the with institution of the plan; How The World Health Organization will have to maintain a major role in getting the information to doctors in developing countries.

Information is vital for health and development, but the world’s scientific knowledge remains largely out of reach for many countries. To attain global health equity, relevant information and the technologies to deliver it must be widely available and effectively used. The Health InterNetwork initiative is a unique partnership created to bridge the digital divide in health, based on the principle of equitable access to health information. Launched as part of the United Nations Millennium Action Plan with the World Health Organization as its lead agency, the Health InterNetwork aims to improve public health by facilitating the flow of health information, using the Internet. The core elements of the project are content, Internet connectivity, and capacity building. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies, user-edited online resources such as Wikipedia are increasingly tapped for information. However, there is little research on the quality of health information found in Wikipedia., Objective: To compare the scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia with that of a free, online, traditionally edited database (Medscape Drug Reference [MDR])., Methods: Wikipedia and MDR were assessed on 8 categories of drug information. Questions were constructed and answers were verified with authoritative resources. Wikipedia and MDR were evaluated according to scope (breadth of coverage) and completeness. Accuracy was tracked by factual errors and errors of omission. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the components. Fisher's exact test was used to compare scope and paired Student's t-test was used to compare current results in Wikipedia with entries 90 days prior to the current access., Results: Wikipedia was able to answer significantly fewer drug information questions (40.0%) compared with MDR (82.5%; p < 0.001). Wikipedia performed poorly regarding information on dosing, with a score of 0% versus the MDR score of 90.0%. Answers found in Wikipedia were 76.0% complete, while MDR provided answers that were 95.5% complete; overall, Wikipedia answers were less complete than those in Medscape (p < 0.001). No factual errors were found in Wikipedia, whereas 4 answers in Medscape conflicted with the answer key; errors of omission were higher in Wikipedia (n = 48) than in MDR (n = 14). There was a marked improvement in Wikipedia over time, as current entries were superior to those 90 days prior (p = 0.024)., Conclusions: Wikipedia has a more narrow scope, is less complete, and has more errors of omission than the comparator database. Wikipedia may be a useful point of engagement for consumers, but is not authoritative and should only be a supplemental source of drug information.

Web 2.0 technologies, where users participate in content production, are increasingly used as informational and educational resources. Wikipedia is frequently cited by students in the healthcare professions. This study compared the accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia to Medscape Drug Reference, a traditionally-edited resource. Wikipedia answered fewer questions [40.0% vs. 82.5%] (p<0.001) and was less complete (p=0.00076) than Medscape. No gross errors were found in Wikipedia and its content has improved over time.