Definition of Health 2.0: a Systematic Review



Tom Van De Belt* Lucien Engelen*
Tom Van De Belt*, Regional Emergency Healthcare Network. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Lucien Engelen*, Regional Emergency Healthcare Network. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Sivera Berben*, Regional Emergency Healthcare Network. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Lisette Schoonhoven*, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands


Track: Research
Presentation Topic: other
Presentation Type: Oral presentation
Submission Type: Single Presentation

Building: MECC
Room: Auditorium 2
Date: 2010-11-30 03:30 PM – 05:00 PM
Last modified: 2010-09-21
qrcode

If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL).

Abstract


Background: During the last decade, the Internet has become increasingly popular and is now an important part of our daily life. In the Netherlands, the Internet is even more popular than traditional media like television, radio, and newspapers. Furthermore, the impact of the Internet and other technological developments on health care is expected to increase. When new “Web 2.0” technologies are used in health care, the term “Health 2.0” may be used.
A clear definition is important for the development of new Health 2.0 or Medicine 2.0 initiatives and also for the comparability of new developments in research.

Objective: To identify definitions of Health 2.0 and to gain insight in recurrent topics of Health 2.0.

Methods: A systematic literature review of electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, CINAHL) and grey literature on the Internet using the search engines Google, Bing, and Yahoo was performed to find unique definitions of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0. We assessed all literature, extracted unique definitions, and selected recurrent topics by using the constant comparison method.

Results: We found a total of 1937 articles, 533 in scientific databases and 1404 in the grey literature. We selected 46 unique definitions for further analysis, and identified seven main topics: Web 2.0/technology, patients or consumers, professionals, social networking, health information/content, collaboration, and change of health care.

Conclusions: This study showed that the use of the terminology differed between the definitions mentioned in literature. Forty-two definitions comprehended the term Health 2.0, and 10 definitions mentioned Medicine 2.0. Six definitions described Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 as equal. Thirty-six definitions only mentioned the term Health 2.0, and 4 definitions only described Medicine 2.0. Although some authors indicated that little or no differences existed between the two terms others described important differences; Medicine 2.0 is focused on the relation between professionals and patients whereas Health 2.0 is focused on health care in general. As most definitions described Health 2.0, this term may be more widely used and accepted than Medicine 2.0.
Health 2.0 is still developing. Many articles concerning this subject were found, primarily on the Internet. However, there is still no general consensus regarding the definition of Health 2.0. We hope that this study will contribute to building the concept of Health 2.0 and facilitate discussion and further research.




Medicine 2.0® is happy to support and promote other conferences and workshops in this area. Contact us to produce, disseminate and promote your conference or workshop under this label and in this event series. In addition, we are always looking for hosts of future World Congresses. Medicine 2.0® is a registered trademark of JMIR Publications Inc., the leading academic ehealth publisher.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.