| Literature DB >> 35126961 |
M M Kamruzzaman1, Bingxin Yan2, Md Nazirul Islam Sarker3, Omar Alruwaili4, Min Wu2, Ibrahim Alrashdi1.
Abstract
Nowadays, technology has been evolving rapidly. Due to the consequent impact of smart technologies, it becomes a ubiquitous part of life. These technologies have led to the emergence of smart cities that are geographic areas driven by advanced information and communication technologies. In the context of smart cities, IoT, blockchain, and fog computing have been found as the significant drivers of smart initiates. In this recognition, the present study is focused on delineating the impact and potential of blockchain, IoT, and fog computing on healthcare services in the context of smart cities. In pursuit of this objective, the study has conducted a systematic review of literature that is most relevant to the topic of the paper. In order to select the most relevant and credible articles, the researcher has used PRISMA and AMSTAR that have culminated in the 10 most relevant articles for the present study. The findings revealed that IoT, blockchain, and fog computing had become drivers of efficiency in the healthcare services in smart cities. Among the three technologies, IoT has been found to be widely incorporated. However, it is found to be lacking in terms of cost efficiency, data privacy, and interoperability of data. In this recognition, blockchain technology and fog computing have been found to be more relevant to the healthcare sector in smart cities. Blockchain has been presented as a promising technology for ensuring the protection of private data, creating a decentralized database, and improving the interoperability of data while fog computing has been presented as the promising technology for low-cost remote monitoring, reducing latency and increasing efficiency.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35126961 PMCID: PMC8808208 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9957888
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Blocks in blockchain (Source: Yaga et al. [26]).
Figure 2Block structure (Source: Zheng et al. [25]).
Figure 3IoT architecture (Source: Patel and Patel [31]).
Figure 4Structure of fog computing (Source: Cha et al. [43]).
Figure 5PRISMA process.
Summary of the findings of the selected articles.
| Year | Title of the article | Author (s) | Findings and results |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Smart city and smart-health framework, challenges and opportunities | Al-Azzam and Alazzam [ | ICT has led to the emergence of smart communities in the context of the healthcare sector. In this regard, with the incorporation of technology, continuous surveillance of patients is possible. This helps identify the critical situation in which immediate intervention is required, such as attending to patients and making changes to the healthcare regulations. |
|
| |||
| 2017 | Internet of things for smart healthcare: Technologies, challenges, and opportunities | Baker et al. [ | The introduction of IoT has enabled healthcare practitioners to incorporate big data and self-learning systems in healthcare. This led to smarter management of the healthcare practices as self-learning systems can learn and intervene in various crucial situations. Thus, with this, the practitioners can determine anomalies timely and take preventive actions. Moreover, due to big data, the care providers can use patients' related data for offering to personalize care to them. However, such systems can be threatening to the sensitive and personal data stored by the hospital and can be subjected to a data breach. |
|
| |||
| 2019 | Smart healthcare challenges and potential solutions using the Internet of things (IoT) and big data analytics | Zeadally et al. [ | IoT allows remote healthcare monitoring to monitor the less or noncritical patients and prescribe treatment remotely. Hence, people living in rural areas can be benefited from this, thus, improving healthcare access and providing better control to the people over their healthcare. |
|
| |||
| 2020 | Blockchain as a driver for smart city development: Application fields and a comprehensive research agenda | Treiblmaier et al. [ | Healthcare institutions have to deal with vast amounts of data of the patients shared with various institutions such as insurance companies. Thus, they are obliged to ensure confidentiality and protect such data, which is the major concern. Ensuring privacy and security for such large amounts of data is not possible with only IoT. In this regard, blockchain technology is increasingly being incorporated to ensure the interoperability of healthcare data. |
|
| |||
| 2020 | Blockchain and smart healthcare security: A survey | Tariq et al. [ | Blockchain ensures high and unbreakable security for healthcare data, which can be subjected to theft and breach. The decentralized storage prevents the intervention by any unauthorized party, and thus, the data cannot be stolen or altered by such parties. Also, in the conventional centralized data systems, there is an issue pertinent to access that can be solved by the incorporation of blockchain technology. |
|
| |||
| 2019 | Applications of blockchain technology in smart city development: A research | Karale and Ranaware [ | The benefits of the blockchain in the healthcare sector transcend beyond just security and privacy concerns. The technology allows for the development of a single healthcare data storage that can be easily accessed by the care providers and the patients. Hence, the patients are not required to carry multiple health records at every visit. The data can also be comprised of all the healthcare professionals in the city and other data pertinent to healthcare. |
|
| |||
| 2019 | Implementing blockchains for efficient health care: A systematic review | Vazirani et al. [ | Blockchain would allow the care providers to get real-time health details, enhancing the effectiveness of precision medicine. Moreover, data from wearable devices and smartphones can be integrated to obtain real-time data. Hence, large amounts of real-time data can be obtained from patients without waiting until prior reports have arrived. |
|
| |||
| 2020 | Fog computing for smart cities' big data management and analytics: A review | Badidi, Mahrez and Sabir [ | Cloud computing and IoT technology are characterized by high latency time, which can be solved by incorporating fog computing. The technology ensures greater efficiency with reduced latency times. |
|
| |||
| 2017 | Fog computing in healthcare—a review and discussion | Kraemer, et al. [ | Conventionally, sensor-to-cloud architecture is used in the healthcare sector for information exchange and accessing information from different locations. This type of infrastructure is restricted by the sector regulation that restricts the management from storing patients' data outside of the healthcare institution. In this regard, fog computing seems promising with a streamlined information exchange process. |
|
| |||
| 2017 | Low-cost fog-assisted health-care IoT system with energy-efficient sensor nodes | Gia [ | Fog computing allows for low-cost remote health monitoring with high speed and efficiency and low energy consumption. Hence, the efficiency of healthcare operations and practices has increased including collecting data, categorizing data and push notification, and managing the information channels. |
| Blockchain, IoT and fog computing for healthcare service in smart cities | |
| Moderate quality review | |
| 1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? | Partially yes |
| 2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? | Yes |
| 3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? | Yes |
| 4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes |
| 5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | No |
| 6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | No |
| 7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | Yes |
| 8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? | Yes |
| 9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | Partially yes |
| 10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | Yes |
| 11. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | Yes |
| No conflict reported | |