OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the use of blockchain technology in health care and to analyze the characteristics of the studies that have implemented blockchain technology.
METHODS: This study used a systematic review methodology to find literature related to the implementation aspect of blockchain technology in health care. Relevant papers were searched for using PubMed, SpringerLink, IEEE Xplore, Embase, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. A quality assessment of literature was performed on the 22 selected papers by assessing their trustworthiness and relevance.
RESULTS: After full screening, 22 papers were included. A table of evidence was constructed, and the results of the selected papers were interpreted. The results of scoring for measuring the quality of the publications were obtained and interpreted. Out of 22 papers, a total of 3 (14%) high-quality papers, 9 (41%) moderate-quality papers, and 10 (45%) low-quality papers were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: Blockchain technology was found to be useful in real health care environments, including for the management of electronic medical records, biomedical research and education, remote patient monitoring, pharmaceutical supply chains, health insurance claims, health data analytics, and other potential areas. The main reasons for the implementation of blockchain technology in the health care sector were identified as data integrity, access control, data logging, data versioning, and nonrepudiation. The findings could help the scientific community to understand the implementation aspect of blockchain technology. The results from this study help in recognizing the accessibility and use of blockchain technology in the health care sector.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study to evaluate the quality and risks of websites discussing TA supplements was conducted. Online marketing websites, research articles, news articles, personal opinions, and those restricted by password were excluded. The quality and risks of websites were assessed using a modified DISCERN tool and a set of risk assessment criteria, respectively. The health claims for TA were identified and analyzed using content analysis.
RESULTS: Overall, 321 websites met the inclusion criteria and were further evaluated. The overall rating of the quality of the websites was low, with a mean score ± standard deviation of 1.07 ± 0.51. Most websites lacked information that there may be more than one possible treatment choice and did not discuss areas of uncertainty. However, 67.9% (218/321) of the websites received a risk score of zero. A minority of websites (5/321, 1.6%) discouraged the use of conventional medicines. The most common health claims for TA included in the websites related to the enhancement of testosterone level (121/321, 37.7%), treatment of malaria (112/321, 34.9%), and improvement in libido (108/321, 33.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Websites containing information about TA supplements generally have a low-quality rating based on a modified DISCERN tool despite having a low-risk score. Government agencies and healthcare professionals (HCPs) must be more proactive in the critique and dissemination of information relating to HM, and in ensuring the safe use of HM among the public and patients.
Methods: An online questionnaire survey method was used. Based on sample size calculation, a total of 1,508 UiTM staff and students from ten selected campuses of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) were invited to participate in this survey. An up-to-date e-mail list of staff in the selected campuses was used as the sampling frame for the study, whereas the students were recruited from the official university student Facebook portal.
Results: A total of 788 respondents participated in this survey, 72.2% of them knew about facial candling, though only 35.4% had tried the treatment. Approximately one-fifth of respondents agreed that facial candling might treat AR. It was found that a higher number of users than nonusers agreed that facial candling was a traditional medicine (78.9% vs 55.0%); could be used on the face and ears (83.5% vs 45.4%); and could be self-administered at home (83.5 vs 45.4%). Interestingly, more than half of them were uncertain about its long-term effects and adverse reactions.
Conclusion: This study confirms the facial candling use among patients with AR although the percentage is low. The patients and general public need to be better informed about the use of facial candling in AR and its associated risks.