"The needs of the developing world is very different > from that in the developed world, hence GK3 that will address ICT4D > targetting the developing world where achieving the MDGs is still a > dream while that has been achieved in the developed world."
I respectfully have to disagree.....I have had the privilege over the past few years to experience and now work in both. I'm sorry to say that in reality the developed world has areas whose needs are almost identical.....all you have to do is visit one of aboriginal reserves here in Canada, or the slums of any large US city and experience how many homeless people and others go without any decent health care. Compare the infant mortality rates in the US to Cuba's (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12kris.html)....which is the developing country? The cultural contexts may be different, but a tremendous number of hospitals and clinics in the developed world cannot afford high quality health information technology and don't have any to speak of....far too many are still paper based and have no clinical systems. The developed world has its own internal digital divides that will benefit from collaboration with the developing world and vice versa. Dividing the world up into islands of development and automation fails to take advantage of one of the most important strengths of the open source model. VistA is actually a good example of how you can go overboard focusing on a local/regionsl context. The implementations in Germany and Egypt which took place several years ago now have forked and stagnated to the point which they have not been able to take advantage of significant innovations. The German system is still roll and scroll....VistA pre 1998. That's why we put the World in WorldVistA .... WorldCup not WorldSeries :-) Yes there is a need to coordinate in regional cultural contexts....but the fundamental issues we are facing are the same across the world and working collaboratively will enable us to solve them faster, and in a way that can lead to lasting evidence based continuous improvement. The challenges of health care are universal....perhaps I am overly idealistic...but I believe that solving them together will make the world a safer, happier place for everyone. Joseph Molly Cheah wrote: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: [oshca_members] Why is open source fidelity is important to health > care and what should OSHCA do? > From: > Molly Cheah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: > Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:54:16 +0800 > To: > OSHCA Members List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > OSHCA Members List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > These are the same issues when debating the resurrection of OSHCA and > when discussing who/what should be accepted for presenting at the OSHCA > 2007 conference. The needs of the developing world is very different > from that in the developed world, hence GK3 that will address ICT4D > targetting the developing world where achieving the MDGs is still a > dream while that has been achieved in the developed world. A look at > most of the successful business models using open source technologies > today are seen in the west, including the uptake of VistA which some of > us are still trying to bring to the developing world. > > OSHCA has provision for chapters in Asia, Europe, North American, Latin > America & Caribbean, Africa & Middle East, East Europe & Central Asia > and Oceania and we have members from ALL these places. Article 4 of its > constitution also provides the principles where members from different > regions can take the lead to evolve different projects with different > focus to meet their own priorities and needs, without having to enforce > their own interests on others. That's how OSHCA can be strengthened, if > members want to see it strengthened. Please go ahead and do that rather > than talk about other platforms. So what are you guys from the developed > world waiting for? > > As I have said before, my interest is to see the use of oss (of any > kind) in the health care sector in the developing world and to address > capacity building for the use of oss. > > Molly > Joseph Dal Molin wrote: >> Something to think about Tim: would embedding collaboration in >> something like IMIA impose any barriers to entry such as having to >> pay a significant fee to join....and does the charter or culture of >> that or any other organization impose any restrictions or political >> baggage etc. that get in the way. If it costs money to join for >> example, you are already imposing a "tax" on collaboration and >> volunteering. >> >> Personally I have found that the overhead and cultural speed bumps of >> the big informatics associations offset the benefits they >> bring....what I think is needed and has been rather elusive so far is >> a simple mechanism to establish project to project collaboration among >> highly distributed projects with often overlapping goals, while >> avoiding the "not invented here" and other competitive antibodies that >> are show stoppers. >> >> Joseph >> >> Tim Churches wrote: >>> Will Ross wrote: >>>> Tim & Joseph, >>>> >>>> I think you have very effectively described one of the dichotomies in >>>> open source software advocacy. The open source development model, as >>>> Joseph has said so well, is the peer reviewed approach to mutual >>>> investigation, discovery and invention. And as you have said so well, >>>> in the health care sector, as in all vertical software business >>>> sectors, >>>> there are abundant opportunities for focused application of the open >>>> source development model to yield transformative community progress >>>> towards improved delivery of services -- e.g., better tools for the >>>> provision of health care, better care for patients, etc. The >>>> presentation I gave at the OSHCA conference earlier this year was along >>>> these same lines, a simple survey of open source tools in one small >>>> area >>>> of health care delivery, an open ended investigation of the state of >>>> the >>>> situation across multiple similar tools rather than advocacy for a >>>> single software tool. I like your question about a separate >>>> organization for this type of investigation. I wonder if a simple >>>> open >>>> source working group under IMIA would suffice? >>> >>> I agree that an IMIA working group which focuses on fostering the >>> development and release of open source health care software (as opposed >>> to just the use of open source software in health care settings) is >>> probably the best way forward. It may be possible that the existing IMIA >>> open source working group can be used for this purpose - if not, then >>> I'll investigate setting up a new one. >>> >>> Tim Churches >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Tim Churches wrote: >>>> >>>>> Joseph Dal Molin wrote: >>>>>> There is a critically important point that I fear is getting lost >>>>>> in the >>>>>> recent "exchange" of email.... and that is how important to achieving >>>>>> the goals of healthcare is implementing a high fidelity open source >>>>>> model? In healthcare software has become as life-critical a tool as a >>>>>> drug or procedure....you can do a great deal of good and you can hurt >>>>>> people or worse. Because of this I often compare open source >>>>>> process to >>>>>> evidence based medicine >>>>>> to explain the model to health care professionals.... open, peer >>>>>> reviewed, collaborative, outcomes focused. The more you bend the >>>>>> model >>>>>> to intensify satisfaction of non-health related objectives or >>>>>> constraints or goals, such as financial or other non-health goals, >>>>>> the >>>>>> more you >>>>>> compromise and the less effective the software and its development >>>>>> processes become in supporting the improvement of people's health. >>>>>> >>>>>> One has to assume that adopters know nothing about open source to >>>>>> really >>>>>> level the playing field. OSHCA needs to develop an objective >>>>>> classification/rating >>>>>> system for "open source" health software solutions, which would >>>>>> include >>>>>> a definition of the business and community ecosystem model for that >>>>>> solution, so that adopters clearly understand what they are >>>>>> committing >>>>>> to and what the implications are. This kind of transparency will >>>>>> enable >>>>>> the community to more effectively decide where to invest its >>>>>> resources >>>>>> and cut through the marketing hype that is increasingly occurring now >>>>>> that open source is considered a legitimate option in many places. >>>>> These are excellent observations with which I heartily concur. Indeed, >>>>> some may recall that I proposed such a classification scheme for >>>>> papers >>>>> to be presented at the 2007 OSHCA conference, and for projects and >>>>> applications listed on the OSHCA web site. That proposal received a >>>>> positive reception from some, and a frosty reception from others. >>>>> >>>>> However, I really wonder whether two organisations are needed: OSHCA, >>>>> with the wider goal of promoting the use of open source software of >>>>> any >>>>> type, including open source "infrastructure" components such as Linux, >>>>> Apache, MySQL, PHP, OpenOffice and so on, in health care settings, >>>>> and a >>>>> separate organisation with the more specific goal of promoting, >>>>> encouraging and fostering the development of open source health care >>>>> applications and tools. A working title for the latter organisation >>>>> might be something like the 'Healthcare Open Source Software >>>>> Developers >>>>> Network'. >>>>> >>>>> Although these goals are complementary, there are also inevitable >>>>> tensions, and I no longer feel that they can both be adequately >>>>> pursued >>>>> by one organisation. Of course, there is no reason why individuals and >>>>> organsations can't be members of both OSHCA and the proposed >>>>> 'Healthcare >>>>> Open Source Software Developers Network' organisation. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Tim Churches >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> oshca_members mailing list >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members >>>>> >>>> [wr] >>>> >>>> - - - - - - - - >>>> >>>> will ross >>>> chief information officer >>>> mendocino informatics >>>> 216 west perkins street, suite 206 >>>> ukiah, california 95482 usa >>>> 707.462.6369 [office] >>>> 707.462.5015 [fax] >>>> www.minformatics.com >>>> >>>> - - - - - - - - >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> oshca_members mailing list >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> oshca_members mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members >>> . >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> oshca_members mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > oshca_members mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health
