Ted

I am using this definition to guide the HealthCamp discussions at:

http://barcamp.org/HealthCampDc (Sept 12th) and http://barcamp.org/HealthCampNy the following week at the Web 2.0 Expo.

My feeling about this is that it can never be done and that’s fine. Disk space is cheap (relatively speaking) and every idea helps all of us change people’s minds and then their behavior,

Ted

“Health 2.0 is participatory healthcare characterized by the ability to rapidly share, classify and summarize individual health information with the goals of improving health care systems, experiences and outcomes via integration of patients and stakeholders.”

I had “and communities” at the end Andrea but it started to read like the begats.

We have the knowledge and the opportunity now to change the way things work and I want to be a part of that.

Great stuff!

I prefer stakeholders to patient because part of the concept is being able to share the info with people who would have never seen it before and as I said before the ability to move/share individual rather than excluisvely grouped data. I’ve left patient in the definition below - it’s redundant because of stakeholders but deserves emphasis.

Here’s a try:

“Health 2.0 is participatory healthcare characterized by the ability to rapidly share, classify and summarize individual health information between stakeholders in partnership with the patient to improve the health care system, experiences and outcomes.”

Thanks for writing, the more participation the better. I reviewed the definition on your blog, how might you marry the ideas you mention above? Feel free to suggest something,

Ted

Just to play devil’s advocate; by your definition the defining aspect of Health 2.0 is engagement/participation of stakeholders previously excluded. But the data and information for Health 2.0 is already out there on the internet through pubmed, www and other sources. However, the data is grouped, summarized or otherwise depersonnalized which causes the disconnect between the parties involved.

I think what your definition is lacking is that a description of the quality of information that is shared. The ability to rapidly share individual infomration is new whereas sharing grouped information is old. The fact that a patient can now drill down from a hospital report card to their own medication list all on the same website is new, unique and the very nature of Health 2.0
http://www.waittimes.blogspot.com

Excellent definition and experiment in crowd-sourcing!

“We can be partners.”

“We can participate.”

We sure as hell can!

http://barcamp.org/HealthCampMd