Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 92, Issue 4, pp 313–316 | Cite as

L’utilisation des technologies de l’information et des communications (TIC) en santé publique

  • Mike BenigeriEmail author
  • Jean-Marc Brodeur
Article

Résumé

Le développement des technologies de l’information et des communications (TIC) et d’Internet offre aux intervenants en santé publique de nouveaux outils pour remplir leurs missions de connaissance et surveillance de l’état de santé de la population, de promotion de la santé, de prévention des maladies et de protection de la santé publique. Ainsi, depuis quelques années, apparaissent de nouvelles applications et pratiques en santé publique qui utilisent ces technologies, en particulier au niveau de la communication entre les intervenants et de la transmission d’informations à la population.

Cet article a pour objectif de donner une vue d’ensemble de l’utilisation des TIC en santé publique et de discuter des impacts de ces technologies sur les pratiques. La discussion est centrée autour des implications de l’utilisation de ces nouvelles technologies: implications en ce qui concerne les nouvelles possibilités d’interventions mais aussi en ce qui concerne les difficultés liées à l’utilisation de ces technologies et les problèmes d’inégalité et d’éthique qu’elles peuvent entraîner. Finalement, le problème de l’évaluation de ces technologies et de leur impact sur la santé des populations est abordé.

Abstract

The development of information and communications technologies (ICT) and Internet offers public health practitioners new tools to fulfil their missions of monitoring public health, health promotion and disease prevention, and public health protection. In recent years, new applications and practices in public health using these technologies have emerged, particularly in the area of communication among practitioners and transmission of information to the population.

This article aims to give an overall view of the use of ICT in public health and to discuss the impact of these technologies on public health practices. The discussion is centred around the implications of using these new technologies: implications with regard to the new possibilities provided by these technologies, but also with regard to the difficulties involved in their use as well as issues related to unequal access and ethics. Finally, the question of the evaluation of these technologies and of their impact on public health is discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliographie

  1. 1.
    Laporte RE. Telepreventive medecine-the autobahn to health. [Commentary] BMJ 1996;313(7069):1383–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barinasmitchell EJM, Davis NL, McGuire M, et al. Internet connectivity of state health departments–United States, 1996. Science Communication 1997;19(2):164–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hollander SM, Martin ER. Public health professionals in the Midwest: A profile of connectivity and information technology skills. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1999;87(3):329–36.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schoch NA, Shooshan SE. Communication on a listserv for health information professionals: Uses and users of MEDLIB-L. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1997;85(1):23–32.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murray PJ. Nurses’ computer-mediated communications on NURSENET. A case study. Comput Nurs 1996;14(4):227–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epidemio-L. http://alize.ere.uMontreal.ca/~philippp.
  7. 7.
    Statistique Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/francais/Pgdb/People/health_f.htm.
  8. 8.
    CDC WONDER. http://wonder.cdc.gov/.
  9. 9.
    Partners in Information Access for Public Health Professionals. http://www.nnlm.nlm.nih.gov/partners/.
  10. 10.
    Friede A, Rosen DH, Reid JA. CDC WONDER: A cooperative processing architecture for public health. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994;1(4):303–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CDC Prevention Guidelines Database. http://won-der.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/prevguid.htm.
  12. 12.
    Ziemer K. Evaluation of a continuing professional education opportunity via an on-line service. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1996;51–54.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richardson ML, Norris TE. On-line delivery of continuing medical education over the World-Wide Web: An on-line needs assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168(5):1161–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Public Health Training Network. http://www.cdc.gov/phtn/.
  15. 15.
    Global health network university. http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/.
  16. 16.
    Joffres MR, LaPorte RE. Bringing epidemiology manuals and books onto the Internet through the Epilink. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147(4):325–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dean AG, Shah SP, Churchill JE. DoEpi. Computer-assisted instruction in epidemiology and computing and a framework for creating new exercises. Am J Prev Med 1998;14(4):367–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robinson TN, Patrick K, Eng TR, et al. An evidence-based approach to interactive health communication: A challenge to medicine in the information age. Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health. JAMA 1998;280(14):1264–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Benjamin I, Dilling TJ, Goldwein JW. Administration of a World Wide Web site during a period of rapid growth: The OncoLink experience. MD Comput 1997;14(5):365–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guard R, Haag D, Kaya B, et al. An electronic consumer health library: NetWellness. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1996;84(4):468–77.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dickinson P, Ellison J. Être branché ou ne pas l’être: croissance de l’utilisation des services de communication par ordinateur. In: Canada S (Ed.), Indicateurs des services. Ottawa: Statistique Canada, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Direction de la santé publique de Montréal-Centre. http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/.
  23. 23.
    Réseau canadien de la santé. http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/customtools/homef.html.
  24. 24.
    Bluming A, Mittelman PS. Los Angeles Free-Net: An experiment in interactive telecommunication between lay members of the Los Angeles community and health care experts. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1996;84(2):217–22.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    American Heart Association - Choose To Move. http://www.choosetomove.org/.
  26. 26.
    Middelkoop BJ, Bohnen AM, Duisterhout JS, et al. Rotterdam general practitioners report (ROHAPRO): A computerised network of general practices in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Rotterdam’s HuisArtsen Project. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49(3):231–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Freedman DO, Kozarsky PE, Weld LH, et al. GeoSentinel: The global emerging infections sentinel network of the International Society of Travel Medicine. J Travel Med 1999;6(2):94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Flahault A, Dias-Ferrao V, Chaberty P, et al. FluNet as a tool for global monitoring of influenza on the Web. JAMA 1998;280(15):1330–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chauvin P. Constitution and monitoring of an epi-demiological surveillance network with sentinel general practitioners. Eur J Epidemiol 1994;10(4):477–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Centre Européen pour la Surveillance Epidémiologique du SIDA. http://www.ceses.org/sida.htm.
  31. 31.
    Réseau sentinelles. http://www.b3e.jussieu.fr/senti-web/fr/.
  32. 32.
    Arzt NH, Salkowitz SM. Technology Strategies For a State Immunization Information System. Am J Prev Med 1997;13(2):51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roger France FH. Control and use of health information: A doctor’s perspective. Int J Biomed Comput 1996;43(1–2):19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kalra D. Electronic health records: The European scene. BMJ 1994;309(6965):1358–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Internet Journal of Health Promotion. http://www.ijhp.org/.
  36. 36.
    Laporte RE, Marler E, Akazawa S, et al. The death of biomedical journals. BMJ 1995;310:1387–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    INPHO Evaluation Working Group. An Evaluation of the CDC Information Network for Public Health Officials. Atlanta: CDC, 1997.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Friede A, Blum HL, McDonald M. Public health informatics: How informationage technology can strengthen public health. Annu Rev Public Health 1995;16:239–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Public Health Informatics Fellowship Program. http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/informat.htm.
  40. 40.
    Ferguson T. Health online and the empowered medical consumer. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1997;23(5):251–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, et al. Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: Systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ 1997;314(7098):1875–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Desai NS, Dole EJ, Yeatman ST, et al. Evaluation of drug information in an Internet newsgroup. J Am Pharm Assoc 1997;NS37(4):391–94.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Allain PY, Schuck S, Beaufils C, et al. Drugs on the Internet. Hazards of public health. Presse Med 1998;27(3):117–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sandvik H. Health information and interaction on the internet: A survey of female urinary incontinence. BMJ 1999;319(7201):29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eng TR, Maxfield A, Patrick K, et al. Access to health information and support: A public highway or a private road? JAMA 1998;280(15):1371–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Robinson C, Flowers CW, Alperson BL, et al. Internet access and use among disadvantaged innercity patients. JAMA 1999;281(11):988–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Morris TA, Guard JR, Marine SA, et al. Approaching equity in consumer health information delivery: NetWellness. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997;4(1):6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, et al. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: Review. BMJ 1999;318(7184):647–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: Principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association. JAMA 2000 Mar 22–29; 283(12):1600–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gustafson DH, Robinson TN, Ansley D, et al. Consumers and evaluation of interactive health communication applications. The Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health. Am J Prev Med 1999;16(1):23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Eng TR, Gustafson DH, Henderson J, et al. Introduction to evaluation of interactive health communication applications. Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health. Am J Prev Med 1999;16(1):10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fawcett J, Buhle EL, Jr. Using the Internet for data collection. An innovative electronic strategy. Comput Nurs 1995;13(6):273–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lakeman R. Using the Internet for data collection in nursing research. Comput Nurs 1997;15(5):269–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sell RL. Research and the Internet: An e-mail survey of sexual orientation [letter]. Am J Public Health 1997;87(2):297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Watt JH. Internet systems for evaluation research. In: Gay G, Bennington TL (Eds.), Information Technologies in Evaluation: Social, Moral, Epistemological, and Practical Implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département d’épidémiologie et de biostatistiqueUniversité McGillQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Département de médecine sociale et préventiveUniversité de MontréalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations