What is e-health?
18 Jun 2001-Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada)-Vol. 3, Iss: 2
TL;DR: Everybody talks about e-health these days, but few people have come up with a clear definition of this comparatively new term, which was apparently first used by industry leaders and marketing people rather than academics.
Abstract: Everybody talks about e-health these days, but few people have come up with a clear definition of this comparatively new term. Barely in use before 1999, this term now seems to serve as a general "buzzword," used to characterize not only "Internet medicine", but also virtually everything related to computers and medicine. The term was apparently first used by industry leaders and marketing people rather than academics. They created and used this term in line with other "e-words" such as e-commerce, e-business, e-solutions, and so on, in an attempt to convey the promises, principles, excitement (and hype) around e-commerce (electronic commerce) to the health arena, and to give an account of the new possibilities the Internet is opening up to the area of health care. Intel, for example, referred to e-health as "a concerted effort undertaken by leaders in health care and hi-tech industries to fully harness the benefits available through convergence of the Internet and health care." Because the Internet created new opportunities and challenges to the traditional health care information technology industry, the use of a new term to address these issues seemed appropriate. These "new" challenges for the health care information technology industry were mainly (1) the capability of consumers to interact with their systems online (B2C = "business to consumer"); (2) improved possibilities for institutionto-institution transmissions of data (B2B = "business to business"); (3) new possibilities for peerto-peer communication of consumers (C2C = "consumer to consumer").
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: In this paper, skeletal status was evaluated in 2850 females aged 7 to 77 yr using quantitative ultrasound (QUS amplitude-dependent speed of sound [Ad-SoS]), and the peak value (2121 m/s) was achieved in 19-yr-old females.
Abstract: In the study, skeletal status was evaluated in 2850 females aged 7 to 77 yr using quantitative ultrasound (QUS amplitude-dependent speed of sound [Ad-SoS]). Ad-SoS ranged from 1923 ± 30 to 1876 ± 81 m/s, and the peak value (2121 m/s) was achieved in 19-yr-old females. Ad-SoS increased significantly between subgroups aged 11 and 12 yr, 12 and 13 yr, 13 and 14 yr, 14 and 15 yr, and 15 and 16 yr. After the age of 19 yr the only significant drop was noted between age groups 47 and 48 yr. Ad-SoS was regressed on age, weight, and height for age ranges 7 to 11 yr. (before an increase in Ad-SoS), 12 to 19 yr (from the onset of the increase to the peak value), and older than 19 yr to menopause. In females after menopause, years since menopause (YSM) were taken into consideration. In the two youngest groups Ad-SoS was affected positively by age, and in the two next groups, age had a negative influence on Ad-SoS, whereas weight had a negative and height a positive influence in all groups. YSM did not influence the Ad-SoS value. It was concluded that QUS measurements at the hand phalanges are a useful tool in assessment of skeletal status in the female population.
1,020 citations
TL;DR: This article presents an international selection of leading smart home projects, as well as the associated technologies of wearable/implantable monitoring systems and assistive robotics, often designed as components of the larger smart home environment.
935 citations
TL;DR: A holistic framework is composed based on a participatory development approach, persuasive design techniques, and business modeling that serves as an evidence-based roadmap to demonstrate the impact of eHealth technologies more effectively.
Abstract: Background: Many eHealth technologies are not successful in realizing sustainable innovations in health care practices. One of the reasons for this is that the current development of eHealth technology often disregards the interdependencies between technology, human characteristics, and the socioeconomic environment, resulting in technology that has a low impact in health care practices. To overcome the hurdles with eHealth design and implementation, a new, holistic approach to the development of eHealth technologies is needed, one that takes into account the complexity of health care and the rituals and habits of patients and other stakeholders. Objective: The aim of this viewpoint paper is to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies by advocating a holistic approach toward their development and eventual integration in the health sector. Methods: To identify the potential and limitations of current eHealth frameworks (1999–2009), we carried out a literature search in the following electronic databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Knowledge, PiCarta, and Google Scholar. Of the 60 papers that were identified, 44 were selected for full review. We excluded those papers that did not describe hands-on guidelines or quality criteria for the design, implementation, and evaluation of eHealth technologies (28 papers). From the results retrieved, we identified 16 eHealth frameworks that matched the inclusion criteria. The outcomes were used to posit strategies and principles for a holistic approach toward the development of eHealth technologies; these principles underpin our holistic eHealth framework. Results: A total of 16 frameworks qualified for a final analysis, based on their theoretical backgrounds and visions on eHealth, and the strategies and conditions for the research and development of eHealth technologies. Despite their potential, the relationship between the visions on eHealth, proposed strategies, and research methods is obscure, perhaps due to a rather conceptual approach that focuses on the rationale behind the frameworks rather than on practical guidelines. In addition, the Web 2.0 technologies that call for a more stakeholder-driven approach are beyond the scope of current frameworks. To overcome these limitations, we composed a holistic framework based on a participatory development approach, persuasive design techniques, and business modeling. Conclusions: To demonstrate the impact of eHealth technologies more effectively, a fresh way of thinking is required about how technology can be used to innovate health care. It also requires new concepts and instruments to develop and implement technologies in practice. The proposed framework serves as an evidence-based roadmap.
883 citations
TL;DR: The widespread use of the term eHealth suggests that it is an important concept, and that there is a tacit understanding of its meaning, according to a systematic review of published, suggested, or proposed definitions.
Abstract: CONTEXT: The term eHealth is widely used by many individuals, academic institutions, professional bodies, and funding organizations. It has become an accepted neologism despite the lack of an agreed-upon clear or precise definition. We believe that communication among the many individuals and organizations that use the term could be improved by comprehensive data about the range of meanings encompassed by the term.
OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a systematic review of published, suggested, or proposed definitions of eHealth.
DATA SOURCES: Using the search query string “eHealth” OR “e-Health” OR “electronic health”, we searched the following databases: Medline and Premedline (1966-June 2004), EMBASE (1980-May 2004), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2004), Web of Science (all years), Information Sciences Abstracts (1966-May 2004), Library Information Sciences Abstracts (1969-May 2004), and Wilson Business Abstracts (1982-March 2004). In addition, we searched dictionaries and an Internet search engine.
STUDY SELECTION: We included any source published in either print format or on the Internet, available in English, and containing text that defines or attempts to define eHealth in explicit terms. Two of us independently reviewed titles and abstracts of citations identified in the bibliographic databases and Internet search, reaching consensus on relevance by discussion.
DATA EXTRACTION: We retrieved relevant reports, articles, references, letters, and websites containing definitions of eHealth. Two of us qualitatively analyzed the definitions and coded them for content, emerging themes, patterns, and novel ideas.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The 51 unique definitions that we retrieved showed a wide range of themes, but no clear consensus about the meaning of the term eHealth. We identified 2 universal themes (health and technology) and 6 less general (commerce, activities, stakeholders, outcomes, place, and perspectives).
CONCLUSIONS: The widespread use of the term eHealth suggests that it is an important concept, and that there is a tacit understanding of its meaning. This compendium of proposed definitions may improve communication among the many individuals and organizations that use the term.
[J Med Internet Res 2005;7(1):e1]
854 citations
Cites background or methods from "What is e-health?"
...In 11 definitions, [3,12,21,27,28,37,43,45-47,55] eHealth was referred to in terms of commerce, suggesting that eHealth is “health care's component of business over the Internet” [45], the “application of e-commerce to health care and pharmaceuticals” [12], or as “new business models using technology” [37]....
[...]
...One author describes eHealth as a “state-of-mind, a way of thinking, an attitude, and a commitment for networked, global thinking” [3]....
[...]
...Others referred to technology in more general terms (eg, new media [52], information and communication technologies [19, 20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41-44, 48, 53, 54], and Internet-related technologies [3,11,18,26,27,34])....
[...]
...The word Internet was explicitly mentioned in 27 of the 51 definitions [3, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20-24, 26-29, 31, 34, 38, 40, 45-47, 49-51]; 4 of them used Internet as an adjective (Internet-related [13], Internet technologies [27, 51], or Internet principles [27]) rather than as a noun....
[...]
...What is this thing called eHealth? Two previous articles in this journal have dealt with the question of how eHealth can be or should be defined [2,3]....
[...]
TL;DR: This work conceptualized Internet-supported interventions, using four categories based on prime practice approaches: web-based interventions, online counseling and therapy, Internet-operated therapeutic software, and other online activities (e.g., as supplements to face-to-face therapy).
Abstract: Background
The field of Internet-supported therapeutic interventions has suffered from a lack of clarity and consistency. The absence of professional leadership and of accepted governing approaches, terminology, professional standards, and methodologies has caused this field to be diffused and unstructured. Numerous terms have been used to label and describe the activities conducted over the Internet for mental and physical health purposes: web-based therapy, e-therapy, cybertherapy, eHealth, e-Interventions, computer-mediated interventions, and online therapy (or counseling), among others.
605 citations