Hacking Acute Care: A Qualitative Study on the Health Care Impacts of Ransomware Attacks Against Hospitals.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Cyberattacks are an increasing threat to health care institutions which potentially impair patient outcomes. Current research is limited and focuses mainly on the technical consequences, whereas little is known about health care staff experiences and the effect on emergency care. This study aimed to explore the acute care effect of several large ransomware attacks against hospitals that occurred in Europe and the United States between 2017 and 2022. METHODS: This interview-based qualitative study assessed the experiences of emergency health care professionals and information technology (IT) staff and investigated the challenges during the acute and recovery phase of hospital ransomware attacks. The semistructured interview guideline was based on relevant literature and cybersecurity expert consultation. Transcripts were anonymized, and traceable information regarding participants and/or their organizations was removed for privacy purposes. RESULTS: Nine participants were interviewed, including emergency health care providers and IT-focused staff. Five themes were constructed from the data: effects and challenges regarding patient care continuity, challenges during the recovery process, personal effect on health care staff, preparedness and lessons identified, and future recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: According to the participants of this qualitative study, ransomware attacks have a significant effect on emergency department workflow, acute care delivery, and the personal well-being of health care providers. Preparedness for such incidents is limited, and many challenges are encountered during the acute and recovery phase of attacks. Although there was profound hesitancy among hospitals to participate in this study, the limited number of participants provided valuable information that can be used to develop response strategies for hospital ransomware attacks.

Fake meat or meat with benefits? How Dutch consumers perceive health and nutritional value of plant-based meat alternatives.

Animal agriculture has a large impact on the environment. Hence, there is an increasing demand for meat alternatives - more sustainably produced plant-based products that replace meat as meal component. Demands for meat alternatives also seem to be fuelled by consumers' belief that meat alternatives are healthier than meat products. In an online questionnaire study, we examined whether consumers indeed perceived meat alternatives to be healthier, to what degree consumers adequately estimated the nutritional value of meat (alternatives), and whether a nutrition claim could misguide consumers. In a panel of 120 Dutch consumers, it was found that meat alternatives were generally perceived as being healthier than meat products. According to supermarket data, meat alternatives contained less protein and saturated fat, higher levels of fibre and salt compared to meat. Consumers were found to overestimate the protein content of meat alternatives relative to meat products, especially when meat alternatives carry a 'high in protein' claim. The current beliefs about the healthiness and nutritional content of meat and meat alternatives are precarious and a fair, transparent, and understandable environment should be created for the conscious consumer.

How Different Dimensions Shape the Definition of Meat Alternative Products: A Scoping Review of Evidence between 2000 and 2021.

Consumer awareness of meat-associated health and environmental risks is increasing and motivates a shift toward consuming meat alternatives. This is also reflected in efforts invested in studying meat alternatives from the perspective of nutritional, environmental, and consumer sciences. Despite shared research interest, these studies cannot be readily compared and interpreted because there is no clear consensus on what meat alternatives are. Scholarly debates on acceptance, nutritional value, and environmental advantages of meat alternatives would benefit from a clear definition of meat alternatives. With the goal of defining meat alternatives, relevant scientific literature in the past 10 years was systematically searched and screened guided by the scoping review Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension. The initial search resulted in >100,000 hits, which was reduced to 2465 papers. Next, titles and abstracts were scrutinized using Rayyan.ai, resulting in 193 articles considered for the present review. Article screening and data extraction was performed using ATLAS.ti software. Three major themes were identified to define meat alternative products including: 1) producing and sourcing of ingredients; 2) product characteristics (that is, sensory characteristics, nutritional value, and health profile, social and environmental sustainability profile); and 3) consumer characteristics concerning the marketing and consumption context. Meat alternatives are multifaceted, that is, certain products can be considered as meat alternatives in some context, but not in another context. For any product, it is impossible to unequivocally state that it is a meat alternative. There is a lack of consensus from the diverse literature on what constitutes meat alternatives. However, products may be qualified as meat alternatives according to three key criteria as proposed in a taxonomy: 1) production and sourcing, 2) product characteristics, and/or 3) consumption. We recommend researchers (and other stakeholders) to do so as it allows for better informed future discussions of meat alternatives.