Send libreplanet-discuss mailing list submissions to
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
libreplanet-discuss-request@libreplanet.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
libreplanet-discuss-owner@libreplanet.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of libreplanet-discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Why medical technology often doesn't make it from drawing
board to hospital (Mary-Anne Wolf)
2. Freedom friendly online survey software? (Pen-Yuan Hsing)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:48:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Mary-Anne Wolf <mgwmgw@comcast.net>
To: Thomas Harding <tom@thomas-harding.name>,
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Why medical technology often
doesn't make it from drawing board to hospital
Message-ID: <1812621608.537563.1487548133398@connect.xfinity.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I think it is a question of rewards and prestige and power. The hospital's
customer is not the patient but the insurance company, who pays the money.
While hospitals may be rewarded for better results, the hospital decision
makers are more often stronger in their expertise in medicine than in their
expertise about technology. There are exceptions; Children's Hospital in
Boston is a well known example, whose leadership has expertise in both
technology and medicine. The highest prestige jobs in a hospital are typically
positions held by people with M.D.s. The pressure to contain costs is
formidable, and while better software can indeed improve results in some cases,
the people who make decisions in a hospital will typically not have the right
expertise to recognize when and how that happens. While they understand that
some things require technology, and may choose to invest in sufficient
technology to make certain kinds of treatments possible, they may not have the
nuanced appreciation of the difference between better and worse software, as
most of us on this list would understand. Similarly, researchers supported by
grants are rewarded for showing that something new is possible, rather than for
repeating the same discovery but making it more easy or smooth or reliable.
That is the nature of how grant worthiness is judged. While there are grants
specifically aimed at bringing research results into routine clinical use, they
don't force the researchers to look at software quality, and the people who
judge which teams get these grants may or may not even understand where and how
the maturity of the software fits into making research more clinically useful.
It may not be their expertise either.
On February 18, 2017 at 7:59 AM Thomas Harding <tom@thomas-harding.name> wrote:
Why hospital doesn't fund computing researchers / research centers to make
their tools usable daily in an hospital, instead of waiting for
private/commercial compaignies/corporations to integrate it, most likely in a
complete new(again) very costly equipment and not as an upgrade or maintainance?
Le 16 f?vrier 2017 12:33:42 GMT+01:00, David Hirst <david@davidhirst.com>
a ?crit :
> >
Why medical technology often doesn?t make it from drawing board to
hospital
https://theconversation.com/why-medical-technology-often-doesnt-make-it-from-drawing-board-to-hospital-72981
This article, published under a cc licence, so freely available,
criticises ?free? software and not providing incentives to make it robust
enough and easy enough for clinical use. The conversation is not peer-reviewed,
but is a voice for academics, who are used to peer scrutiny.
I do not know the field, but I can see that there is huge scope for
tools to help visualisation of scans that might make them easier to interpret.
But I suspect it is a bit na?ve to blame ?incentives?, and it sounds a
bit neolib to me. But somebody more expert in the area may have better grounds
for comment.
The article can have comments made about it, and I think you can be
confident that the author will see them and respond.
Regards
David
David Hirst
Mobile: +44 7831 405443
>
--
Envoy? de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma bri?vet?.
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.libreplanet.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/attachments/20170219/01ac8bae/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:46:08 +0000
From: Pen-Yuan Hsing <penyuanhsing@gmail.com>
To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: [libreplanet-discuss] Freedom friendly online survey
software?
Message-ID: <855ca269-59fd-c97e-f31c-2de4bc6c61a2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Dear libreplanet,
I often see online surveys/evaluations done with Google Forms or
Surveymonkey, but these services are not freedom or privacy respecting.
Are there replacements for them that *are* freedom and privacy
respecting? Thank you!