Blog
About

126
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: Tensions and Controversies in the Field

      , MSc, MBA , 1 , , MBBS 2 , , PhD 1

      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)

      Journal of Medical Internet Research

      Gunther Eysenbach

      Web 2.0, Medicine 2.0, Health 2.0

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The term Web 2.0 became popular following the O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004; however, there are difficulties in its application to health and medicine. Principally, the definition published by O’Reilly is criticized for being too amorphous, where other authors claim that Web 2.0 does not really exist. Despite this skepticism, the online community using Web 2.0 tools for health continues to grow, and the term Medicine 2.0 has entered popular nomenclature.

          Objective

          This paper aims to establish a clear definition for Medicine 2.0 and delineate literature that is specific to the field. In addition, we propose a framework for categorizing the existing Medicine 2.0 literature and identify key research themes, underdeveloped research areas, as well as the underlying tensions or controversies in Medicine 2.0’s diverse interest groups.

          Methods

          In the first phase, we employ a thematic analysis of online definitions, that is, the most important linked papers, websites, or blogs in the Medicine 2.0 community itself. In a second phase, this definition is then applied across a series of academic papers to review Medicine 2.0’s core literature base, delineating it from a wider concept of eHealth.

          Results

          The terms Medicine 2.0 and Health 2.0 were found to be very similar and subsume five major salient themes: (1) the participants involved (doctors, patients, etc); (2) its impact on both traditional and collaborative practices in medicine; (3) its ability to provide personalized health care; (4) its ability to promote ongoing medical education; and (5) its associated method- and tool-related issues, such as potential inaccuracy in enduser-generated content. In comparing definitions of Medicine 2.0 to eHealth, key distinctions are made by the collaborative nature of Medicine 2.0 and its emphasis on personalized health care. However, other elements such as health or medical education remain common for both categories. In addition, this emphasis on personalized health care is not a salient theme within the academic literature. Of 2405 papers originally identified as potentially relevant, we found 56 articles that were exclusively focused on Medicine 2.0 as opposed to wider eHealth discussions. Four major tensions or debates between stakeholders were found in this literature, including (1) the lack of clear Medicine 2.0 definitions, (2) tension due to the loss of control over information as perceived by doctors, (3) the safety issues of inaccurate information, and (4) ownership and privacy issues with the growing body of information created by Medicine 2.0.

          Conclusion

          This paper is distinguished from previous reviews in that earlier studies mainly introduced specific Medicine 2.0 tools. In addressing the field’s definition via empirical online data, it establishes a literature base and delineates key topics for future research into Medicine 2.0, distinct to that of eHealth.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: multivariate results from the Pew surveys.

           Gregory Rice (2005)
          This paper provides results from seven major nationally representative datasets (two in detail) from the Pew Internet and American Life Project to answer two primary questions: (1) what influences people to seek online health information and (2) what influences their perceived outcomes from having access to this information? Cross-tabulations, logistic regressions, and multidimensional scaling are applied to these survey datasets. The strongest and most consistent influences on ever, or more frequently, using the Internet to search for health information were sex (female), employment (not fulltime), engaging in more other Internet activities, more specific health reasons (diagnosed with new health problem, ongoing medical condition, prescribed new medication or treatment), and helping another deal with health issues. Internet health seeking is consistently similar to general Internet activities such as email, news, weather, and sometimes hobbies. A variety of outcomes from or positive assessments of searching for Internet health information are predicted most strongly by sex (female), engaging in other Internet activities, Internet health information seeking including more frequent health seeking, more specific health reasons, belonging to an online support group sharing health interests, and helping another deal with an illness or major health condition.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education

            Background We have witnessed a rapid increase in the use of Web-based 'collaborationware' in recent years. These Web 2.0 applications, particularly wikis, blogs and podcasts, have been increasingly adopted by many online health-related professional and educational services. Because of their ease of use and rapidity of deployment, they offer the opportunity for powerful information sharing and ease of collaboration. Wikis are Web sites that can be edited by anyone who has access to them. The word 'blog' is a contraction of 'Web Log' – an online Web journal that can offer a resource rich multimedia environment. Podcasts are repositories of audio and video materials that can be "pushed" to subscribers, even without user intervention. These audio and video files can be downloaded to portable media players that can be taken anywhere, providing the potential for "anytime, anywhere" learning experiences (mobile learning). Discussion Wikis, blogs and podcasts are all relatively easy to use, which partly accounts for their proliferation. The fact that there are many free and Open Source versions of these tools may also be responsible for their explosive growth. Thus it would be relatively easy to implement any or all within a Health Professions' Educational Environment. Paradoxically, some of their disadvantages also relate to their openness and ease of use. With virtually anybody able to alter, edit or otherwise contribute to the collaborative Web pages, it can be problematic to gauge the reliability and accuracy of such resources. While arguably, the very process of collaboration leads to a Darwinian type 'survival of the fittest' content within a Web page, the veracity of these resources can be assured through careful monitoring, moderation, and operation of the collaborationware in a closed and secure digital environment. Empirical research is still needed to build our pedagogic evidence base about the different aspects of these tools in the context of medical/health education. Summary and conclusion If effectively deployed, wikis, blogs and podcasts could offer a way to enhance students', clinicians' and patients' learning experiences, and deepen levels of learners' engagement and collaboration within digital learning environments. Therefore, research should be conducted to determine the best ways to integrate these tools into existing e-Learning programmes for students, health professionals and patients, taking into account the different, but also overlapping, needs of these three audience classes and the opportunities of virtual collaboration between them. Of particular importance is research into novel integrative applications, to serve as the "glue" to bind the different forms of Web-based collaborationware synergistically in order to provide a coherent wholesome learning experience.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Googling for a diagnosis--use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study.

               Jennifer Ng,  H. Tang (2006)
              To determine how often searching with Google (the most popular search engine on the world wide web) leads doctors to the correct diagnosis. Internet based study using Google to search for diagnoses; researchers were blind to the correct diagnoses. One year's (2005) diagnostic cases published in the case records of the New England Journal of Medicine. 26 cases from the New England Journal of Medicine; management cases were excluded. Percentage of correct diagnoses from Google searches (compared with the diagnoses as published in the New England Journal of Medicine). Google searches revealed the correct diagnosis in 15 (58%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 77%) cases. As internet access becomes more readily available in outpatient clinics and hospital wards, the web is rapidly becoming an important clinical tool for doctors. The use of web based searching may help doctors to diagnose difficult cases.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                Gunther Eysenbach (Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, Toronto, Canada )
                1438-8871
                Jul-Sep 2008
                6 August 2008
                : 10
                : 3
                Affiliations
                2West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (WHHT)Hemel HempsteadUK
                1simpleDepartment of Information Systems ESADEBarcelonaSpain
                Article
                v10i3e23
                10.2196/jmir.1056
                2553249
                18682374
                © Benjamin Hughes, Indra Joshi, Jonathan Wareham. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 06.08.2008. Except where otherwise noted, articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided 1) the original work is properly cited, including full bibliographic details and the original article URL on www.jmir.org, and 2) this statement is included.
                Categories
                Review

                Medicine

                health 2.0, web 2.0, medicine 2.0

                Comments

                Comment on this article