Experiences from patients in mental healthcare accessing their electronic health records: results from a cross-national survey in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Patients' online record access (ORA) enables patients to read and use their health data through online digital solutions. One such solution, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) have been implemented in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. While accumulated research has pointed to many potential benefits of ORA, its application in mental healthcare (MHC) continues to be contested. The present study aimed to describe MHC users' overall experiences with national PAEHR services. METHODS: The study analysed the MHC-part of the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, a large-scale multi-country survey. The survey consisted of 45 questions, including demographic variables and questions related to users' experiences with ORA. We focused on the questions concerning positive experiences (benefits), negative experiences (errors, omissions, offence), and breaches of security and privacy. Participants were included in this analysis if they reported receiving mental healthcare within the past two years. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise data, and percentages were calculated on available data. RESULTS: 6,157 respondents were included. In line with previous research, almost half (45%) reported very positive experiences with ORA. A majority in each country also reported improved trust (at least 69%) and communication (at least 71%) with healthcare providers. One-third (29.5%) reported very negative experiences with ORA. In total, half of the respondents (47.9%) found errors and a third (35.5%) found omissions in their medical documentation. One-third (34.8%) of all respondents also reported being offended by the content. When errors or omissions were identified, about half (46.5%) reported that they took no action. There seems to be differences in how patients experience errors, omissions, and missing information between the countries. A small proportion reported instances where family or others demanded access to their records (3.1%), and about one in ten (10.7%) noted that unauthorised individuals had seen their health information. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, MHC patients reported more positive experiences than negative, but a large portion of respondents reported problems with the content of the PAEHR. Further research on best practice in implementation of ORA in MHC is therefore needed, to ensure that all patients may reap the benefits while limiting potential negative consequences.

Feed intake in housed dairy cows: validation of a three-dimensional camera-based feed intake measurement system.

Measuring feed intake accurately is crucial to determine feed efficiency and for genetic selection. A system using three-dimensional (3D) cameras and deep learning algorithms can measure the volume of feed intake in dairy cows, but for now, the system has not been validated for feed intake expressed as weight of feed. The aim of this study was to validate the weight of feed intake predicted from the 3D cameras with the actual measured weight. It was hypothesised that diet-specific coefficients are necessary for predicting changes in weight, that the relationship between weight and volume is curvilinear throughout the day, and that manually pushing the feed affects this relationship. Twenty-four lactating Danish Holstein cows were used in a cross-over design with four dietary treatments, 2 × 2 factorial arranged with either grass-clover silage or maize silage as silage factor, and barley or dried beet pulp as concentrate factor. Cows were adapted to the diets for 11 d, and for 3 d to tie-stall housing before camera measurements. Six cameras were used for recording, each mounted over an individual feeding platform equipped with a weight scale. When building the predictive models, four cameras were used for training, and the remaining two for testing the prediction of the models. The most accurate predictions were found for the average feed intake over a period when using the starting density of the feed pile, which resulted in the lowest errors, 6% when expressed as RMSE and 5% expressed as mean absolute error. A model including curvilinear effects of feed volume and the impact of manual feed pushing was used on a dataset including daily time points. When cross-validating, the inclusion of a curvilinear effect and a feed push effect did not improve the accuracy of the model for neither the feed pile nor the feed removed by the cow between consecutive time points. In conclusion, measuring daily feed intake from this 3D camera system in the present experimental setup could be accomplished with an acceptable error (below 8%), but the system should be improved for individual meal intake measurements if these measures were to be implemented.

Predicting CO2 production of lactating dairy cows from animal, dietary, and production traits using an international dataset.

Automated measurements of the ratio of concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide, [CH4]:[CO2], in breath from individual animals (the so-called "sniffer technique") and estimated CO2 production can be used to estimate CH4 production, provided that CO2 production can be reliably calculated. This would allow CH4 production from individual cows to be estimated in large cohorts of cows, whereby ranking of cows according to their CH4 production might become possible and their values could be used for breeding of low CH4-emitting animals. Estimates of CO2 production are typically based on predictions of heat production, which can be calculated from body weight (BW), energy-corrected milk yield, and days of pregnancy. The objectives of the present study were to develop predictions of CO2 production directly from milk production, dietary, and animal variables, and furthermore to develop different models to be used for different scenarios, depending on available data. An international dataset with 2,244 records from individual lactating cows including CO2 production and associated traits, as dry matter intake (DMI), diet composition, BW, milk production and composition, days in milk, and days pregnant, was compiled to constitute the training dataset. Research location and experiment nested within research location were included as random intercepts. The method of CO2 production measurement (respiration chamber [RC] or GreenFeed [GF]) was confounded with research location, and therefore excluded from the model. In total, 3 models were developed based on the current training dataset: model 1 ("best model"), where all significant traits were included; model 2 ("on-farm model"), where DMI was excluded; and model 3 ("reduced on-farm model"), where both DMI and BW were excluded. Evaluation on test dat sets with either RC data (n = 103), GF data without additives (n = 478), or GF data only including observations where nitrate, 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), or a combination of nitrate and 3-NOP were fed to the cows (GF+: n = 295), showed good precision of the 3 models, illustrated by low slope bias both in absolute values (-0.22 to 0.097) and in percentage (0.049 to 4.89) of mean square error (MSE). However, the mean bias (MB) indicated systematic overprediction and underprediction of CO2 production when the models were evaluated on the GF and the RC test datasets, respectively. To address this bias, the 3 models were evaluated on a modified test dataset, where the CO2 production (g/d) was adjusted by subtracting (where measurements were obtained by RC) or adding absolute MB (where measurements were obtained by GF) from evaluation of the specific model on RC, GF, and GF+ test datasets. With this modification, the absolute values of MB and MB as percentage of MSE became negligible. In conclusion, the 3 models were precise in predicting CO2 production from lactating dairy cows.