MedChain: efficient healthcare data sharing via Blockchain
Open accessAbstract
Healthcare information exchange is an important research topic, which can benefit both healthcare providers and patients. In healthcare data sharing, many cloud-based solutions have been proposed, but the trustworthiness of a third-party cloud service is questionable. Recently, blockchain has been introduced in healthcare record sharing, which does not rely on trusting a third party. However, existing approaches only focus on the records collected from medical examination. They are not efficient in sharing data streams continuously generated from sensors and other monitoring devices. Today, IoT devices have been widely deployed and sensors and mobile applications can monitor patients’ body conditions. The collected data are shared to laboratories and institutions for diagnosis and further study. Moreover, existing approaches are too rigid to efficiently support metadata change. In this paper, an efficient data-sharing scheme is proposed, called MedChain, which combines blockchain, digest chain, and structured P2P network techniques to overcome the above efficiency issues in the existing approaches for sharing both types of healthcare data. Based on MedChain, a session-based healthcare data-sharing scheme is devised, which brings flexibility in data sharing. The evaluation results show that MedChain can achieve higher efficiency and satisfy the security requirements in data sharing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Blockchain may assist in creating a viable information ecosystem for managing personal health records by incorporating heterogeneous forms of data, including medical big data.
“Further, blockchain may assist in creating a viable information ecosystem for managing such PHRs (Mamoshina et al., 2018) by incorporating heterogeneous forms of data (Yue et al., 2016;Shen et al., 2019;Silva et al., 2019), including medical big data (Kaur et al., 2018).”
From Blockchain in healthcare: A systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as Shen et al., 2019
Significant attention has been paid in the reviewed literature to maintaining data integrity.
“However, significant attention has been paid to the need to maintain data integrity (Hyla & Pejaś, 2019;Tian et al., 2019;Shen et al., 2019).”
From Blockchain in healthcare: A systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as Shen et al., 2019
A few studies directed attention to facilitating cross-institutional data sharing and improving efficiency and flexibility of data sharing.
“A few studies have also directed attention to the facilitation of crossinstitutional data sharing (Al Omar et al., 2019), and improvements in efficiency as well as flexibility of data sharing (Shen et al., 2019).”
From Blockchain in healthcare: A systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as Shen et al., 2019
Manual approvals by users for data movement may impact framework performance efficiency.
“The design of the framework and authorizations for data movement may also be contingent on manual approvals by users, which may impact the efficiency of the framework's performance (Shen et al., 2019).”
From Blockchain in healthcare: A systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as Shen et al., 2019
Extant research indicates costs including linear increase in protocol costs based on entity characteristics, increased operational overhead and access latency, and transaction/execution costs based on string length and size.
“Additionally, other costs indicated as constraints and limitations in the extant research include the linear increase in protocol costs contingent upon the characteristics and attributes of the involved entities, such as patients (Guo et al., 2018), increased operational overhead (for the patient) and access latency (for the requester) (Shen et al., 2019), and the transaction and execution costs”
From Blockchain in healthcare: A systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as Shen et al., 2019
Cites
Goldberger, A. L., Amaral, L. A. N., Glass, L., Hausdorff, J. M., Ivanov, P. C., Mark, R. G., Mietus, J. E., Moody, G. B., Peng, C.-K., & Stanley, H. E. (2000) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.101.23.e215 · Cited by 14,809 · see citing works
A Digital Signature Based on a Conventional Encryption Function
Merkle, R. C. (1988) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-48184-2_32 · Cited by 1,998 · see citing works
Yue, X., Wang, H., Jin, D., Li, M., & Jiang, W. (2016) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-016-0574-6 · Cited by 1,240 · see citing works
Blockchain Technology for Healthcare: Facilitating the Transition to Patient-Driven Interoperability
Gordon, W. J., & Catalini, C. (2018) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2018.06.003 · Cited by 828 · see citing works
Blockchain-based data preservation system for medical data
Li, H., Zhu, L., Shen, M., Gao, F., Tao, X., & Liu, S. (2018) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-018-0997-3 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Research issues for privacy and security of electronic health services
Yüksel, B., Küpçü, A., & Özkasap, Ö. (2017) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2016.08.011 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A survey of blockchain from the perspectives of applications, challenges, and opportunities
Monrat, A. A., Schelen, O., & Andersson, K. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2936094 · Cited by 1,077 · see citing works
Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review and Directions for Future Research
Khezr, S., Moniruzzaman, M., Yassine, A., & Benlamri, R. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9091736 · Cited by 575 · see citing works
Tandon, A., Dhir, A., Islam, A. K. M. N., & Mäntymäki, M. (2020) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2020.103290 · Cited by 439 · see citing works
“…and attributes of the involved entities, such as patients (Guo et al., 2018), increased operational overhead (for the patient) and access latency (for the requester) (Shen et al., 2019), and the transaction and execution costs based on variable inputs of string length & size (Al Omar et al., 2019).”
BackgroundA survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions
Uddin, M. A., Stranieri, A., Gondal, I., & Balasubramanian, V. (2021) · Blockchain: Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2021.100006 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Rauniyar, A., Hagos, D. H., Jha, D., Håkegård, J. E., Bagci, U., Rawat, D. B., & Vlassov, V. (2024) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2023.3329061 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Blockchain-Enabled Information Sharing Within a Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review
Wan, P. K., Huang, L., & Holtskog, H. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2980142 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Blockchain-based healthcare workflow for tele-medical laboratory in federated hospital IoT clouds
Celesti, A., Ruggeri, A., Fazio, M., Galletta, A., Villari, M., & Romano, A. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20092590 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shen, B., Guo, J., & Yang, Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Macau (MO)
- Corresponding author
- Guo, Jingzhi
- Venue
- Applied Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2019-03-22
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1207
- ISSN
- 2076-3417 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3046129398
- Cited by
- 412
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 90 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 60.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Applied Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Universidade de Macau (MYRG2017-00091-FST)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- health data sharing, blockchain, peer-to-peer networks, IoT health monitoring, continuous data streams, medical records, data security
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review