14 Responses

1. Mark Scrimshire

   June 13th, 2008 at 10:05 am

   1

   This is a great definition. I am going to use this at HealthCampMd this weekend (6/14) - http://barcamp.org.HealthCampMd

2. Mark Scrimshire

   June 13th, 2008 at 10:06 am

   2

   That should have been:

   http://barcamp.org/HealthCampMd

3. Jen McCabe Gorman

   June 13th, 2008 at 11:22 am

   3

   Ted, Dave -

   Excellent definition and experiment in crowd-sourcing!

   “We can be partners.”

   “We can participate.”

   We sure as hell can!

4. Ian Furst

   June 13th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

   4

   Hey 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

5. Ted Eytan

   June 13th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

   5

   Hi Ian,

   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

6. Ian Furst

   June 13th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

   6

   Sure make it hard.
   From your definition I think the concepts of:
   -participatory healthcare, we the people can participate, reshape the health system are critical and lacking in my definition.

   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.”

7. Andre Blackman

   June 15th, 2008 at 4:18 am

   7

   This is what I’m talkin about Ted! The three words I see in this definition pretty much sum it up for me: participatory, information and community.

   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!

8. Ian Furst

   June 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

   8

   Hey Ted - I did some more word smithing and came up with this:

   “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.

9. Ted Eytan

   June 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

   9

   Thanks Andre and Ian - I think we are all learning what’s missing from Health 1.0 in this process and it looks like your improvement is around an individual’s own health information. Thanks for being open to putting another one out there!

   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

10. Pulse & Signal » Blog Archive » New Definition of Health 2.0

    June 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    10

    [...] the latest definition of Health 2.0, I’m pretty satisfied about this latest iteration from Dr. Ted Eytan: Health 2.0 is participatory healthcare. Enabled by information, software, and community that we [...]

11. Mark Scrimshire

    July 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

    11

    Te reason I like the definition in this blog post is that it stresses the role of the patient and the community. While we seek to refine the definition we must try to retain the critical participatory role of the individual and the community in the re-engineered health care system.

    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.

12. Ted Eytan

    July 31st, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    12

    Great to hear Mark, yet another reason for everyone in the Mid-Atlantic area interested in Health 2.0 to do their best to attend on September 12. It’s on my calendar,

    Ted

13. Crowdsourcing the Definition of Participatory Medicine | e-Patients.net

    October 16th, 2008 at 12:04 am

    13

    [...] is a direct connection between this definition and Ted crowdsourced definition of Health 2.0: Health 2.0 is participatory healthcare. Enabled by information, software, and community that we [...]

14. Participatory Medicine and the Democratization of Knowledge | Perspectives...

    October 16th, 2008 at 1:46 am

    14

    [...] of knowledge, and there’s growing interest in the concept, also described as "Health 2.0," defined by Ted Eytan as "participatory [...]