JMIR J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 1438-8871 Gunther Eysenbach Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, Toronto, Canada v12i2e18 20542857 10.2196/jmir.1350 Original Paper Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: A Systematic Review Eysenbach Gunther Oh Hans Hughes Benjamin Mayoral Rafael Randeree Ebrahim Van De Belt Tom H MSc 1
Regional Emergency Healthcare Network Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Internal postal code 4112 PO Box 9101 6500 HB Nijmegen Netherlands 31 243610455 31 243619057 tom.vandebelt@azo.nl
Engelen Lucien JLPG 1 Berben Sivera AA MSc 1 Schoonhoven Lisette PhD 2 2 Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Nijmegen Netherlands 1 Regional Emergency Healthcare Network Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Nijmegen Netherlands Apr-Jun 2010 11 06 2010 12 2 e18 15 09 2009 06 10 2009 27 02 2010 17 03 2010 ©Tom H Van De Belt, Lucien JLPG Engelen, Sivera AA Berben, Lisette Schoonhoven. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 11.06.2010   2010

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

During the last decade, the Internet has become increasingly popular and is now an important part of our daily life. When new “Web 2.0” technologies are used in health care, the terms “Health 2.0" or "Medicine 2.0” may be used.

 Objective

The objective was to identify unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and recurrent topics within the definitions.

 Methods

A systematic literature review of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL) and gray literature on the Internet using the search engines Google, Bing, and Yahoo was performed to find unique definitions of Health 2.0/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 gray literature. We selected 46 unique definitions for further analysis and identified 7 main topics.

 Conclusions

Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 are still developing areas. 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/Medicine 2.0. We hope that this study will contribute to building the concept of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and facilitate discussion and further research.

 Health 2.0 Medicine 2.0 eHealth Patient Empowerment Professional Empowerment Web 2.0 telemedicine Introduction

During the last decade, the Internet has become increasingly popular and now forms an important part of our daily life [1]. In the Netherlands, the Internet is even more popular than traditional media like television, radio, and newspapers [2]. Furthermore, the impact of the Internet and other technological developments on health care is expected to increase [3,4]. Patients are using search engines like Google and Bing to find health related information. In Google, five percent of all searches are health related [5]. Patients can express their feelings on weblogs and online forums [3], and patients and professionals can use the Internet to improve communication and the sharing of information on websites such as Curetogether [6] and the Dutch website, Artsennet [7] for medical professionals. The use of Internet or Web technology in health care is called eHealth [1,8].

In 2004 the term “Web 2.0” was introduced. O’Reilly defined Web 2.0 as “a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet, a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects” [9]. Although there are different definitions, most have several aspects in common. Hansen defined Web 2.0 as “a term which refers to improved communication and collaboration between people via social networking” [10]. According to both definitions, the main difference between Web 1.0 (the first generation of the Internet) and Web 2.0 is interaction [11]. Web 1.0 was mostly unidirectional, whereas Web 2.0 allows the user to add information or content to the Web, thus creating interaction. This is why the amount of “user-generated content” has increased enormously [12]. Practical examples of user-generated content are online communities where users can participate and share content. Examples are YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, and microblogging such as Twitter. Twitter, for example, improves communication and the sharing of information among health care professionals [13].

According to some critics, Web 2.0 is not a new generation of the Internet because it is still based on old technologies such as HTML, the predominant markup language. Therefore, the term Web 2.0 simply describes renewal or evolution of these older technologies or of the Internet itself [14,15]. Nonetheless, the term Web 2.0 seems to be widely used and accepted. The search engine Google recently found over 85,000,000 results for the search string “Web 2.0 or Web2.0.”

When Web 2.0 technologies are applied in health care, the term Health 2.0 may be used. [16,17]. Other authors use the term Medicine 2.0, which combines medicine and Web 2.0 [18]. There are many examples of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0, such as the websites Patientslikeme [19] and Hello Health [20]. Recently, the Dutch minister of health awarded a grant to the website MijnZorgNet, which offers 23 virtual networks in which patients and their caregivers communicate. The networks are organized around specific patient categories. Successful examples that preceded the project are a digital in vitro fertilization (IVF) outpatient clinic [21,22] for couples receiving IVF treatment, and the website Parkinson Net [23] for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Both initiatives were started to enhance collaborative health care. Expected beneficial aspects of these projects were improved quality and efficiency of care [24]. Another concept that appears in the Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 literature is “patient empowerment 2.0.” This has been described as “the active participation of the citizen in his or her health and care pathway with the use of information and communication technologies” [25]. It is assumed that Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 leads to empowerment of the patient, as patients have easier access to health-related information and thereby have better understanding of choices that can be made.

According to Hughes [16], no relevant differences exist between Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0. Eysenbach [18] agreed but stated, “If anything, Medicine 2.0 is the broader concept and umbrella term which includes consumer-directed ‘medicine’ or Health 2.0.” More and also more specific definitions of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 exist [16,17]. However, these definitions seem to have evolved together with the increased use of the definitions and the different parties involved in Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0. Ricciardi stated, “Everyone is trying to grasp what Health 2.0 exactly is” [26]. Does Health 2.0 refer to patients or to professionals or both? Does it focus on health care in general, or does it address specific aspects of health care like preventive or curative care, acute or chronic illness? Several authors concluded that there is no authoritative definition of the term yet, and Health 2.0 definitions and translations in practice remain murky and fragmented [27,28].

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. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and to gain insight into recurrent topics associated with these labels.

 Methods

We performed a systematic literature study to find unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and identify and recurrent topics discussed in conjunction with these terms.

Search Strategy

First, we searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL. For each database, we searched all available years through September 2009. Since there was no relevant MeSH term available for Health 2.0 or Medicine 2.0, we used the following search terms: health 2.0, health2.0, health20, medicine 2.0, medicine2.0, medicine20, Web 2.0, Web2.0, Web20 (Table 1). We scanned the reference lists for relevant articles (the snowball method), contacted individual experts in the field, and inquired after relevant publications.

Second, we searched for gray literature on the Internet using the search engines Google, Bing, Yahoo, Mednar, and Scopus. Mednar and Scopus were used because they focus on scientific literature. Google, Bing, and Yahoo were used because these are the most widely used search engines [29,30]. We used the advanced search option, selected English as the preferred language, and turned the option for regional differences off. Based on earlier research [16], we expected a large number of results. Therefore we added a more specified search string query for Google, Yahoo, Bing, and Scopus (Table 2): “what is health 2.0,” “what is health2.0,” and “what is health20.” For Medicine 2.0 we used: “what is medicine 2.0,” “what is medicine20,” and “what is medicine20.” We studied the first 100 results in Google, Bing, and Yahoo as these search engines display results by relevance using a link analysis system or algorithms [31-33]. All searches in the gray literature were performed in November 2009.

 Inclusion Criteria

Subsequently, a combination of three of the authors (TB and LE and LS or SB) independently assessed the retrieved studies and gray literature for inclusion. Sources were included if a definition of Health 2.0 or Medicine 2.0 was identified. Disagreement over inclusion between the reviewers was resolved through discussion.

 Data Extraction

TH and LE independently assessed the included studies and gray literature and extracted unique definitions. A predesigned table was used to ensure standardized data extraction. For each definition we noted author, source, and year (Table 3). After completing the table, we used the constant comparison method to explore possible topics of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 [34]. We independently analyzed the definitions and identified recurrent topics by using “coding.” Described by Strauss and Corbin, coding is an analytical process through which concepts are identified and dimensions are discovered in data [35]. The results are displayed in Table 4.

Search strategy for scientific literature

Database/ Search Engine: Search String: Details Hits Relevanta Includedb
PubMed “health 2.0” OR “health2.0” OR “health20” OR “medicine 2.0” OR “medicine2.0” OR “medicine20” OR “Web 2.0” OR “Web2.0” OR “Web20” 179 12 7
CINAHL “health 2.0” OR “health2.0” OR “health20” OR “medicine 2.0” OR “medicine2.0” OR “medicine20” OR “Web 2.0” OR “Web2.0” OR “Web20” 199 4 0
Scopus (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“health 2.0”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“medicine 2.0”)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“health2.0”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“medicine2.0”)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“health20”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“medicine20”)) 29 6 5
(TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Web 2.0”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Web2.0”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Web20”)) AND (LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA, “MEDI”) OR LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA, “HEAL”) OR LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA, “NURS”) OR LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA, “MULT”)) Limited to subcategories: medicine, health professionals, nursing, multidisciplinary 126 3 2
Subtotal 533 25 14
Duplicates 5
Total 533 25 9

a Relevant: number of relevant articles based on title, abstract, and keywords

b Included: number of included articles based on full article

Search strategy for gray literature

Database/ Search Engine Search String: Hits Relevanta Includedb
Google “health 2.0” OR “health2.0” OR “health20” 482000 28 13
“medicine 2.0” OR “medicine2.0” OR “medicine20” 155000 24 16
“what is health 2.0” OR “what is health 2.0” OR “what is health20” 99 29 25
“what is medicine 2.0” OR “what is Medicine 2.0” OR “what is medicine 20” 33 14 14
Bing “health 2.0” OR “health2.0” OR “health20” 328000 4 4
“medicine 2.0” OR “medicine2.0” OR “medicine20” 62300 8 6
“what is health 2.0” OR “what is health 2.0” OR “what is health20” 477 26 24
“what is medicine 2.0” OR “what is medicine 2.0” OR “what is medicine 20” 31 12 11
Yahoo “health 2.0” OR “health2.0” OR “health20” 466000 17 9
“medicine 2.0” OR “medicine2.0” OR “medicine20” 45000 19 14
“what is health 2.0” OR “what is health 2.0” OR “what is health20” 583 21 21
“what is medicine 2.0” OR “what is medicine 2.0” OR “what is medicine 20” 121 14 12
Mednar “health 2.0” OR “health2.0” OR “health20” 329 27 10
“medicine 2.0” OR “medicine2.0” OR “medicine20” 12 13 5
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY(“what is health 2.0”) OR TITLE- ABS-KEY(“what is health2.0”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“what is health20”) 23 3 0
TITLE-ABS-KEY(“what is medicine 2.0”) OR TITLE- ABS-KEY(“what is medicine2.0”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“what is medicine20”) 0 0 0
Subtotal 1540008 262 184
Duplicates 149
Total 35

a Relevant: number of relevant articles based on title, abstract, and keywords in first 100 results

b Included: number of included articles based on full article

 Results

We scanned a total of 1937 articles, 533 found in scientific databases and 1404 in the gray literature (Tables 1 and 2). We selected 287 articles, 25 peer reviewed articles, and 262 non-scientific articles for further analysis. After selection and removing duplicates, we distinguished 46 unique definitions of Health 2.0 or Medicine 2.0 in 44 articles (Table 3). The length of the definitions varied from 7 to 105 words. We found 42 definitions describing Health 2.0 [3,15-18,25-27,36-69] and two definitions describing Medicine 2.0 [70,71]. Of the 44 articles included, 8 included definitions of both Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 [16-18,40,50,52,55,65]. From these 46 definitions, we identified 7 main recurrent topics: patients, Web 2.0/technology, professionals, social networking, change of health care, collaboration, and health information/content (Table 4). In the following paragraphs we describe these recurrent topics from these definitions in more depth.

Patients and Consumers

The first main topic was “patients” or “consumers of health care,” which was found in 35 definitions. Of these, 12 included mention of either increased participation or empowerment of patients. The following terms or phrases were identified: increased consumer/patient participation [18,27,49,50,58], patients can actively participate [63], and participatory [42,45], patient empowerment or consumer empowerment [41,49,59,62]. The other 23 mentioned only patient or consumer involvement and not the effects.

 Web 2.0/Technology

The second main topic that appeared in 32 definitions from 30 articles was “Web 2.0” or “technology.” Terms varied from “Web 2.0” [3,15,17,36,43,44,46,52,55,57,58,60,62,67,70], to “Web 2.0 technology” [18,27,40,41,50,66,68], “technology” [25,39,62-64], “software” [42,51], “Web (based) tools” [69,71], and “ICT (information and communication technology)” [37]. Web 2.0 was seen as the total of available technologies that stakeholders could use for communication and for sharing information. One definition mentioned “mashing” of Web 2.0 concepts and tools [43]. “Mashing” was seen as combining two or more Web 2.0 sources to create a new one. Other definitions indicated that the concept of Health 2.0 originated from a combination of the concepts “health” and “Web 2.0” [17,40].

 Professionals

The third topic that was identified concerns “professionals” or “caregivers,” and was found in 26 definitions. Of the 46 included definitions, five mentioned increased participation or empowerment of professionals. The following terms were found: “professional empowerment” [49,52,59], “empowerment of the individual” [48], and “empowerment of the user” [3].

Besides patients and professionals, other stakeholders were mentioned. However, they were mentioned less frequently and therefore not included in Table 4 as individual topics. The following stakeholders were mentioned: payers or providers [36,44,52,61], medical and health science students [27,52], biomedical researchers [18,44,49,50,52,71], entrepreneurs [62,65], and government [44]. Other authors were less specific with regard to stakeholders. They included “all stakeholders” [38] or “others” [43,51,57,66].

 Social Networking

The fourth topic, the emergence of online communities and social networking, was reflected in 22 definitions. This was described using different terminology. Definitions referred to “online communities” [42,47,48,51,52,58,66], “social communities” [44], “networks” [71], whereas others referred to “online social networks” or “social networking” [18,26,36,43,50,59], “social interaction” [36], “interactive environments” [58], or “intelligent interaction” [63]. Other definitions focused more on technology: the terms used were “social media tools” [60], “social media,” or “social software” [38,46,56,59,69].

Two authors mentioned “transparency” or “openness” [18,49]. An additional 2 definitions suggested that “sharing” or “online sharing” of medical information was part of Health 2.0 or Medicine 2.0 [45,65].

 Change of Health Care

Fifth, we found that change of health care was described by 15 definitions. According to the definitions, Health 2.0 means change of health care: “a whole new way of involving consumers in the health care system” [64], “next generation of health care services” [67], “new and better health system” [18], “new concept of health care” [52], “all constituent focus on health care value and on improving safety, efficiency and quality of health care” [61], “shaping health care with Web 2.0 tools” [17], and “new wave of innovation” [62]. Change was described differently: “reshaping health care”[17,42], “ever changing” [66], “continually evolving cycle” [49], “evolution of technology and medical industry” [36], “evolution of health care” [41]. Change was also described as “revolutionary” [55], while another author stated, “we should be careful not to assume that a revolution has occurred in health care” [27].

We also found one author who referred to “user generated health care” [25].

 Collaboration

The sixth topic, mentioned in 14 definitions, was collaboration. In the Health 2.0 era, patients will actively contribute to their own care process. Collaboration between professionals and patients may improve. Terms varied from “collaboration” [18,36,43,49,51,59,66,69], “collaboratively” [27], “collaborate” [52,71], “collaborative practices” [16], and “collaborate and share knowledge” [70] to “working together” [39].

There were also other aspects described with regard to the relationship among stakeholders. Patients would transform their role in health care [26] and would be on the same level of playing field as other stakeholders [38]. A role change of patients and professionals was also indicated. For example, the following phrase was used: “doctor and patient positioned together” [37]. Patients were described as “active contributors” [55], “active and responsible partners” [25], or “active partners” [42]. Another author mentioned “integration of patients and stakeholders” [45].

 Health Information or Content

Seventh and last, there was mention of health information or content in 14 definitions. Terms varied from “information,” “health information,” or “medical information” [27,36,37,42,45,48,53,63,65] to “content” [47], “data” [26,44,71], and “user owned content” [58].

Definitions of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0

Author, Source, and Whether Found in Scientific Literaturea or Gray Literatureb Year of Publication Definition
Aller RD et al [36] (Gray) 2007 The term, boiled down to its most basic definition, refers to the evolution of technologies and the medical industry itself to create the next generation of health care for consumers, providers, and payers alike. The term is a take on Web 2.0, which refers to the evolution of the Internet from a tool used essentially for information gathering to one used for collaboration and social interaction.
Bos L et al [25] (Scientific) 2008 Health 2.0 is user generated Health care. What is foreseen is that the self-care information tool of the future will be a combination between the patient's observation record and the Internet, with the doctor and the patient positioned together at the intersection but not having to pay attention to the technology.
Bos L et al [37] (Scientific) 2008 Health 2.0 defines the combination of health data and health information with (patient) experience through the use of ICT, enabling the citizen to become an active and responsible partner in his/her own health and care pathway.
Bourre N [38] (Gray) 2009 Social media and conversations related to health care, where all stakeholders are on the same level of the playing field.
Castilla V [39] (Gray) Unknown Medicine 2.0 is about realizing the potential of today's technology in health care. Medicine 2.0 is about working together. Medicine 2.0 is about getting closer to colleagues and patients.
Conn J [15] (Scientific) 2007 The health care derivate of the far more ubiquitous "Web 2.0."
Doherty I [27] (Scientific) 2008 Web 2.0 Technologies provide members of the health community–health professionals, health consumers, health carers, and medical and medical and health science students–with new and innovative ways to create, disseminate, and share information both individually and collaboratively. This phenomenon has been termed Health 2.0. There is no authoritative definition of the term yet. Health 2.0 is in its infancy and we should be careful not to assume that a revolution has occurred in health care as a result of these new technologies and their various affordances.
Dolan F [40] (Gray) 2007 Health 2.0 is the application of Web 2.0 technologies in the area of health, while Medicine 2.0 is the use of Web 2.0 technologies in the area of medicine.
Dubay A [41] (Gray) 2007 Health 2.0 is the evolution of health care as a result of consumer empowerment. Its definition ranges from “applied Web 2.0 technology to health care” to “the next generation health care delivery.”
Eysenbach G [18] (Scientific) 2008 Medicine 2.0 applications, services, and tools are Web-based services for health care consumers, caregivers, patients, health professionals, and biomedical researchers, that use Web 2.0 technologies and/or semantic web and virtual-reality tools, to enable and facilitate specifically social networking, participation, apomediation, collaboration, and openness within and between these user groups. Or in broader concept: medicine also stands for a new and better health system, which emphasizes collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness, as opposed to the traditional, hierarchical, closed structures within health care and medicine. Medicine 2.0 is the broader concept and umbrella term, which includes consumer-directed "medicine" of Health 2.0.
Eytan T [42] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0 is participatory health care. Enabled by information, software, and community that we collect or create, we the patients can be effective partners in our own health care, and we the people can participate in reshaping the health system itself.
Facebook Health 2.0 Group [43] (Gray) 2007 Health 2.0 is the mashing of Web 2.0 concepts and tools to health care industry, including social networking to promote better collaboration between patients, their caregivers, medical professionals, and others involved in the health care industry.
Flock, B [44] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0: Expand initial Health care 2.0 concept (Web 2.0 features to health care; ratings, search, social communities, and consumer tools) to include entire Health ecosystem (payers, providers, employers, consumers, life sciences entities, government: anyone who can contribute meaningful data.)
Furst I [45] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0 is participatory health care 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.
Gavgani VZ et al [70] (Scientific) 2008 Medicine 2.0 is the latest approach to ensure better health system and well-being of the humanity, in other words, “health for all,” and a healthy community. The development of Medicine 2.0 grossly depends on the application of Web 2.0 sciences.
Goel V [46] (Gray) Unknown Health 2.0 is the use of social media and other technologies to improve communication in health care. These platforms may be used to connect patients with patients, doctors with other professionals, or patients with doctors. The Health 2.0 movement is about enhancing communication to improve the focus and results of the health system on the patients it serves.
Goreman J et al [47] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0: The combination of content and community.
Halper R [48] (Gray) 2007 The empowerment of the individual to have access to detailed objective health care information primarily, though not exclusively, using search engine sites and like-minded communities of patients and physicians.
Hawker M [49] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0 is a continually evolving cycle of health care innovation enabled by the empowerment of the public, patients, health care providers and suppliers, and researchers through increased collaboration, participation, apomediation, feedback and transparency of value-enabled health care interactions.
Healthcaremanagementblog [50] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0 aka Medicine 2.0 aka eHealth, can be broadly defined as “applications, services, and tools are Web-based services for health care consumers, caregivers, patients, health professionals, and biomedical researchers, that use Web 2.0 technologies as well as semantic web and virtual reality tools, to enable and facilitate specifically social networking, participation, apomediation, collaboration, and openness within and between these user groups.”
Holt M [51] (Gray) 2007 The use of social software and lightweight tools to promote collaboration between patients, their caregivers, medical professionals, and other stakeholders in health.
Hughes B [16] (Scientific) 2008 Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 were found to be very similar and subsume five major salient topics: (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; (5) its associated method- and tool-related issues, such as potential inaccuracy in end user-generated content. Difference Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 with eHealth, the key distinctions are made by the collaborative nature of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0.
Jessen W [52] (Gray) 2008 Medicine 2.0 is the science of maintaining and/or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of patients utilizing Web 2.0 Internet-based services, including Web-based community sites, blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, folksonomies (tagging) and Really Simple Syndication (RSS), to collaborate, exchange information, and share knowledge. Physicians, nurses, medical students, and health researchers who consume Web media can actively participate in the creation and distribution of content, helping to customize information and technology for their own purposes.
Health 2.0, a new concept of health care, also utilizes Web 2.0 Internet-based services but is focused on health care value (meaning outcome/price). Patients, physicians, providers, and payers use competition at the medical condition level over the full cycle of care as a catalyst for improving safety, efficiency, and quality of health care delivery. The goal of both of these movements is the delivery of optimal medical outcomes though individualized care.
Levine C [53] (Gray) 2009 Health 2.0 = a noun that describes user-generated health care content. Spurred by sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia, millions are logging on to contribute information and opinions on everything from medications, health professionals, treatment options, side effects, flu pandemics, and best drug practices.
Mesko B [17] (Gray) 2007 Medicine 2.0 = Web 2.0 + medicine (focusing on doctor-patient communication and technologies).
Health 2.0 = Web 2.0 + health care (focusing on shaping health care with Web 2.0 tools and concepts).
Maun C [54] (Gray) 2009 Health 2.0 can be broadly defined as interactive applications, services, and tools that are Web-based services for health care consumers, caregivers, patients, and health professionals.
Moturu ST et al [55] (Scientific) 2008 Like the Web 2.0 revolution changed the user from a passive consumer to an active contributor, a similar metamorphosis being termed as Health 2.0 or Medicine 2.0 would extend the role of information seeking users to include dissemination of experiences and acquired knowledge.
Rampy A [56] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0 = the merging of social media into health care.
Randeree E [3] (Scientific) 2008 Health care 2.0 can be defined as a network of (Web 2.0) applications and services that empower the user and are delivered through the web as a platform.
Ricciardi L [26] (Gray) 2008 Its grassroots push through which patients are using social networks and other tools to generate their own health data and transform their role vis a vis the health care system. Quite honestly, everyone is still trying to figure out exactly what Health 2.0 is.
Richlovsky P [58] (Gray) 2007 Basically, Health 2.0 is a takeoff of Web 2.0, and it alludes to health websites that incorporate Web 2.0 principles of encouraging user-generated and user-owned content, participation, and community-building in rich, interactive environments.
RN Central [57] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0 embraces the idea of bringing health care into the community of medical professionals, patients, and those in the health care industry together with technology and the Internet to provide the best possible health care environment.
Sarashon-Kahn J [59] (Gray) 2007 Social media on the Internet are empowering, engaging, and educating consumers and providers in health care. This movement, known as Health 2.0, can be defined as: The use of social software and its ability to promote collaboration between patients, their caregivers, medical professionals, and other stakeholders in health.
Sharp J [60] (Gray) 2009 Health 2.0 evolved more recently and focuses on Web 2.0 tools, especially social media tools, and their use in health care.
Shreeve S [61] (Gray) 2007 Health 2.0: New concept of health care wherein all the constituents (patients, physicians, providers, and payers) focus on health care value (outcomes/price) and use disruptive innovation as the catalyst for increasing access, decreasing cost, and improving the quality of health care.
Spoetnik L [71] (Gray) 2009 Medicine 2.0 is the use of a specific set of Web tools (blogs podcasts, tagging, search, wikis, etc) by actors in health care, including doctors, patients, and scientists, using principles of open source and generation of content by users and the power of networks in order to personalize health care, collaborate, and promote health education.
Stoakes U [62] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0: A new wave of innovation in health care as a result of changing trends in technology, consumer empowerment, and growing entrepreneurialism at a time when the health care system is spiraling out of control. These converging trends have created an environment for entrepreneurs, start-up companies, innovative thinkers, health professionals, and consumers to rethink how to solve today’s biggest health care challenges. Health 2.0 is about coming up with new ideas and rethinking what’s possible.
Susheel-Ommen J [3] (Gray) 2007 Health 2.0 derives its definition from the definition of Web 2.0, where the technologies used allowed intelligent interaction between the users and the deployed solutions. Currently available technologies allow users to actively participate and contribute to the information that is front-ended using Web interfaces.
Tenderich A [64] (Gray) 2009 It’s both an explosion in new Web-based personal health technologies and a whole new way of involving consumers in the health care system.
Torrey T [65] (Gray) 2008 Medicine 2.0 or Health 2.0 are terms used to describe the massive Internet-sharing of health and medical information among everyone with interest, from health and medical professionals, to patients, to caregivers, to the businesses (pharmaceutical manufacturers, health insurance) which support them. The two terms, Medicine 2.0 and Health 2.0, are often used interchangeably. However, there is a distinction. Medicine 2.0 usually refers to the science of medicine and the practice of treating or curing patients. Health 2.0 is focused on the business of health in general including the delivery, the quality, the safety, and the cost or efficiency of the people, a practice, or facility.
Venn D [66] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0 is an emerging concept of health care that uses Web 2.0 technologies to promote collaboration between patients, physicians, health care professionals, and other members of the health community. Its application is ever-changing, and the evidence for its effectiveness is still raw, but there’s a lot of potential for this type of new technology to improve mental health education and mental health care.
Weisbaum W [67] (Gray) 2007 Health 2.0 is the use of movement to harness the technology of Web 2.0 for the delivery of the next generation of health care services.
Williams P [68] (Gray) Unknown Health 2.0 is the use of Web technology to deliver consumer-driven health services. It uses the same Web 2.0 technology that drives the successful Internet services such as Ebay, Facebook, Expedia, and Amazon.
Wright-Mark S [69] (Gray) 2008 Health 2.0 is a new concept of health care that employs social software and other Web-based tools to promote collaboration between patients, their caregivers, medical professionals, and other stakeholders in health care to create a better, more knowledgeable and cost effective environment for better well-being.

a Located with search of the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL

b Located using the search engines Google, Bing, Yahoo, Mednar, and Scopus

Recurrent topics of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0

Author and Definition of Health 2.0 (H2) and/or Medicine 2.0 (M2) Topics
Author H2 M2 Patients and Consumers Web 2.0 Professionals Social Networking Change Collaboration Health Information or Content
Aller RD et al [36] * * * * * * * *
Bos L et al [25] * * * *
Bos L et al [37] * * * *
Bourre N [38] * *
Castilla V [39] * * * * *
Conn J [15] * *
Doherty I. [27] * * * * * * *
Dolan F [40] * * *
Dubay A [41] * * * *
Eysenbach G [18] * * * * * * * *
Eytan T [42] * * * * * *
Facebook Health 2.0 Group [43] * * * * * *
Flock, B [44] * * * * * *
Furst I [45] * * * *
Gavgani VZ et al [70] * * *
Goel V [46] * * * * *
Goreman J et al [47] * * *
Halper R [48] * * * * *
Hawker M [49] * * * * *
Health caremanagementblog [50] * * * * * * *
Holt M [51] * * * * * *
Hughes B [16] * * * * *
Jessen W [52] * * * * *
* * * * *
Levine C [53] * * *
Mesko B [17] * * * * *
* * * * *
Maun C [54] * * *
Moturu ST et al [55] * * *
Rampy A [50] * *
Randeree E [3] * * *
Ricciardi L [26] * * *
Richlovsky P [58] * * * *
RN Central [57] * * * *
Sarashon-Kahn J [59] * * * * *
Sharp J [60] * * *
Shreeve S [61] * * * *
Spoetnik L [71] * * * * * * *
Stoakes U [62] * * * * *
Susheel-Ommen J [63] * * * * *
Tenderich, A [64] * * * *
Torrey T [65] * * * * *
Venn D [66] * * * * * *
Weisbaum W [67] * * *
Williams P [68] * *
Wright-Mark S [69] * * * * * *
Discussion

This literature search resulted in 46 unique definitions in 44 articles of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 in scientific databases and gray literature on the Internet. We distinguished seven recurrent topics: Web 2.0/technology, patients, professionals, social networking, health information/content, collaboration, and change of health care.

This study showed that the use of the terminology differed among the definitions mentioned in literature. The term Health 2.0 was included in 42 definitions, 10 definitions mentioned Medicine 2.0, and 6 definitions described Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 as equal. There were 36 definitions that only mentioned the term Health 2.0, and only 4 definitions that described Medicine 2.0. Although some authors indicated that little or no differences existed between the two terms [16,18,27,55], others saw differences, for example that Medicine 2.0 is focused on the relation between professionals and patients whereas Health 2.0 is focused on health care in general [17,52,65]. As most definitions described Health 2.0, this term may be more widely used and accepted than Medicine 2.0.

Overall, we found that the term Web 2.0 was mentioned often: 33 authors used the term directly in the definition, which suggests that they accepted this concept. However, others state that Web 2.0 does not exist at all [72]. Authors’ interpretations of the meaning of Web 2.0 influenced their definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 profoundly. We generally distinguished two meanings of Web 2.0. The first meaning is that Web 2.0 is a set or “mashing” (ie, a combination) of technological developments [51,58]. The second meaning is that Web 2.0 is a new generation of the Internet where interaction is important, with more user-generated content that empowers people. In this interpretation, technology, or the mashing of different technologies, is only a tool, and Web 2.0 is more than technology. These meanings result in different definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. A number of definitions referred to the technological developments embedded in health care, whereas other definitions stated that Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 is a new generation of health care. We believe Web 2.0 is a facilitator for Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0, but not a necessity. Indeed, patients can still access health related information without Web 2.0; for example, a patient can go to a library and become well-informed without Web 2.0 technology. However, this would be far more difficult than becoming well-informed through the use of Web 2.0 technology. Second, the topic of stakeholders reflects who the main players are in the field of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. The two main stakeholders we distinguished were patients or consumers, mentioned in 35 definitions, and professionals or caregivers, mentioned in 26 definitions. Interestingly, other stakeholders such as payers of health care, scientists, students, and entrepreneurs were mentioned less frequently, whereas the government was only mentioned once. This is particularly interesting as the government has great influence on health care and changes in health care. Apparently the government is not yet an active party in the development of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0.

Also interesting was that most definitions focused on the relation between patients and professionals. With Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0, patients and professionals were seen to collaborate, with patients transforming their role in health care using social networks and access to health information. Moreover, other relationships might also change; for example, the appearance of online communities could change the relationship between health professionals and specific groups of patients. This has been termed collaborative health care [18].

Finally, it is expected that Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 will lead to change of health care. Expectations concerning the speed of this change ranged from a “gradual shift” [27], an “ever changing” [66] or “continuous interactive process” [49] to “revolution” [55]. However, we advise caution in assuming that a revolution has taken place [27]. It may be that communication, information exchange, and patients’ contribution to his or her care has improved or accelerated, but according to Engelen [8], no fundamental changes in health care have yet occurred.

Authors of a Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 definition generally seemed to approach the definition from their own perspective. For example, patients or patient federations saw patients as the main stakeholder and focused on empowerment of the patient. That is, definitions may be influenced by different stakeholders’ agendas. Therefore, it is important for future Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 researchers to incorporate all stakeholders and thereby include all possible views and perspectives.

Limitations

Our study has some limitations. First, we found 46 unique definitions, mostly in the gray literature, using the Internet. Only 9 definitions were found in peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature. This can be explained by the fact that Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 is a relatively new concept and is still developing. However, it is important to realize there is no evidence-based method available to determine the quality of online content yet. Consequently, proper assessment of the value of the definitions we found was not possible.

Second, it appeared that searches using Google, Bing, and Yahoo showed many results. Although these search engines displayed results by relevance using algorithms and ranking systems, we may have missed unique definitions as we only studied the first 100 results.

Finally, the exact way search engines display results remains unclear. The process can be seen as a black box. As a result, reproduction of searches is far from optimal, as the results literally change every second. Therefore, one might question the suitability of these search engines for scientific research. However, by combining the results of Google, Bing, and Yahoo and using four search queries, we believe we found the majority of all relevant definitions in the gray literature.

 Conclusion

Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 is still a developing concept. Our study identified 46 unique definitions of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 with seven recurrent topics: Web 2.0/technology, patients, professionals, social networking, health information/content, collaboration, and change of health care. There is no general consensus of the definition of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 yet. We hope that this study will contribute to building the concept of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and facilitate future discussion and research to achieve a clear conceptual framework.

We gratefully acknowledge Professor Bas Bloem, PhD, MD, and Professor Jan Kremer, PhD, MD, for their advice with regard to the research proposal. Furthermore, we thank Mr. Guus van den Brekel for his advise on search strategies in online databases, and Boukje Dijkstra, MSc, for her help in the writing of this article.

None declared

 Oh Hans Rizo Carlos Enkin Murray Jadad Alejandro What is eHealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions J Med Internet Res 2005 7 1 e1 15829471 v7e1 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e1 PMC1550636 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek 2009-08-21 Statlinehttp://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=71098ned&D1=33-133&D2=0-2&D3=a&VW=T 5jBiCnvqT Randeree Ebrahim Exploring technology impacts of Healthcare 2.0 initiatives Telemed J E Health 2009 4 15 3 255 60 19382863 10.1089/tmj.2008.0093 Raad voor de Volksgezondheid 2010-02-26 Health 2.0: Plan van aanpakhttp://www.rvz.net/data/download/4372-09_plan_van_aanpak_definitief.doc 5qKqlN8XK Eysenbach G Köhler C Health-related searches on the Internet J Am Med Assoc 2004 291 24 2946 10.1001/jama.291.24.2946 Cure together 2009-09-14 http://www.curetogether.com 5jmc2h3kx Community Artsennet.nl 2009-08-21 http://www.artsennet.nl/ 5jBiSSJtS Engelen LJLPG Slideshare 2009-08-21 Zorg 2.0 Intro Spanje VWS/Nictizhttp://www.slideshare.net/lucienengelen/zorg-20-intro-spanje-vws-nictiz 5jBk3xSV9 O’Reilly T O’Reilly Media 2009-08-21 What is Web 2.0?http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html 5jBkHZlEf Hansen Margaret M Versatile, immersive, creative and dynamic virtual 3-D healthcare learning environments: a review of the literature J Med Internet Res 2008 10 3 e26 18762473 v10i3e26 10.2196/jmir.1051 PMC2626432 Wikipedia 2009-09-14 Web 2.0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0. 5jmYymEBk Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2009-09-14 Working Party on the Information Economy. Participative Web: User-Created Content. 2007http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/14/38393115.pdf 5jmcVQyBk Terry Mark Twittering healthcare: social media and medicine Telemed J E Health 2009 15 6 507 10 19659410 10.1089/tmj.2009.9955 Laningham S IBM 2009-08-21 DeveloperWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Leehttp://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html 5jBkgFNGn Conn J 2009-08-21 Upgrading to Health 2.0http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6375/is_200712/ai_n25529042/ 5jBm7hp0o Hughes Benjamin Joshi Indra Wareham Jonathan Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field J Med Internet Res 2008 10 3 e23 18682374 v10i3e23 10.2196/jmir.1056 PMC2553249 Mesko B Scienceroll 2009-08-21 Medicine 2.0http://scienceroll.com/medicine-20/ 5jBrQFD8G Eysenbach Gunther Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness J Med Internet Res 2008 10 3 e22 18725354 v10i3e22 10.2196/jmir.1030 PMC2626430 Patients Like Me 2009-08-21 http://www.patientslikeme.com/ 5jBrVmOXQ Hello Health 2009-08-21 http://hellohealth.com/ 5jBrZZ6Zy Kremer J De digitale IVF poli 2009-09-14 http://www.patientenepd.nl/wpc/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/apeldoorn-kremer-2007.ppt 5jmcgi1iO Tuil WS IVF and Internet: Evaluation of an Interactive Personal Health Record for IVF Patients [dissertation] 2008 Nijmegen, The Netherlands Radboud University Bloem B Slideshare 2009-08-21 Parkinson Nethttp://www.slideshare.net/lucienengelen/bloem-zorg-20-maart-2009 5jBrdaLjl Klink A De Rijksoverheid. Voor Nederland 2010-05-28 Behandeling Parkinson voorbeeld van patient centraalhttp://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/toespraken/2008/12/01/behandeling-parkinson-voorbeeld-van-patient-centraal.html 5q4c88cy0 Bos L Marsh A Carroll D Gupta S Rees M icmcc.org 2009-09-14 Patient 2.0 Empowermenthttp://www.icmcc.org/pdf/ICMCCSWWS08.pdf. 5jmctHlPU Ricciardi L Project HealthDesign 2009-08-21 A Shift in the Power Dynamic: Health 2.0http://projecthealthdesign.typepad.com/project_health_design/2008/10/a-shift-in-the-power-dynamic-health-20.html 5jBuKYZV0 Doherty I Web 2.0: A Movement Within The Health Community Healthcare Health Care and Informatics Review Online 2008 2009-09-14 12 2 49 57 5jmcy5yBU Klepper B The Health Care Blog 2009-08-21 A broad vision of health 2.0: Reformulating data for transparency, decision support, and revitalized health care marketshttp://web.mac.com/bklepper1/iWeb/Brian%20Klepper/Blog/2F77AB8B-E94F-4212-8D0B-845F0D0858B7.html 5q4cZ8inl seoconsultants.com 2009-09-14 Top Ten Search Engineshttp://www.seoconsultants.com/search-engines/ 5jmd1Wa5V Checkit 2009-08-21 Checkit Nationale Search Engine Monitorhttp://www.checkit.nl/nationalesearchenginemonitor.html 5jBs5VVIs Wikipedia 2009-09-14 PageRankhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank 5jmd4CsgX Yahoo 2010-02-20 How Web Documents are Rankedhttp://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/search/indexing/ranking-01.html 5ngPn7GTZ Bing 2010-02-20 Explore the rich homepagehttp://help.live.com/help.aspx?project=wl_searchv1&market=en-US&querytype=keyword&query=egapemoh&domain=www.bing.com:80 5ngQX6TCJ Maycut P Morehouse R Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and Practical Guide 1994 London, United Kingdom The Falmer Press Proceedings of the Lass Faculty Post-graduate Research Conferenc 2005 Jun 6-7 2009-09-14 Lass Faculty Post-graduate Research Conferenc Southampton UK http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/16340/ 5jmdAlF4J Aller RD Weiner H Cap Today 2009-08-21 How Health 2.0 paradigm can transform business as usualhttp://www.cap.org/apps/portlets/contentViewer/show.do?printFri%E2%80%A6ue&contentReference=cap_today%2Fnewsbytes%2F0707Newsbytes.html 5jBsceF5U Bos L Carrol D Marsh A icmcc.org 2009-09-14 The Impatient Patientwww.icmcc.org/pdf/bosios2008.pdf 5qKrlJUp2 Bourre N Ontario Pharmaceutical Marketing Association 2010-02-20 Pharma and the Evolution of Social Mediahttp://www.theopma.com/pastmeetings/publish/meetings-09/Pharma_and_Social_Media.shtml 5ngQgZPCO Castilla V Slideshare 2010-02-24 Medicine 2.0 brief descriptionhttp://www.slideshare.net/maxedmond/medicine-20-brief-description 5nmMI6LXb Dolan F Frankie Speaking Frankly blog 2009-08-21 What is Health 2.0 / Medicine 2.0?http://frankiespeakingfrankly.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-health-20-medicine-20.html 5jBsot16m Dubay A HealDeal 2010-02-20 Health 2.0 is Health to youhttp://www.healdeal.com/blog/?p=10 5ngQoPPJD Eytan T eHealth. Patient empowerment 2009-08-21 The Health 2.0 Definition: Not Just the Latest, the Greatest!http://www.tedeytan.com/tag/definition 5jBt3CTcv Facebook 2010-02-20 Facebook group Health 2.0http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3007325519&_fb_noscript=1 5ngQsMccp Flock B Microsoft Health and Life Sciences Evangelism Team 2010-02-20 Health 2.0…Hype or here to stayhttp://blogs.msdn.com/hlsdpe/archive/2008/05/12/health-2-0-hype-or-here-to-stay.aspx 5ngQuu3sU Furst I Wait Time and Delayed Care 2009-08-21 New Health 2.0 Definitionhttp://waittimes.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-health-20-definition.html 5jBtARjAO Goel V Business Exchange 2010-02-20 Health 2.0http://bx.businessweek.com/health-20/reference/ 5ngQybC92 Goreman J Braber M Scribd 2010-02-20 Semantice Web Sparks Evolution of Health 2.0—A Road Map to Consumer-Centric Healthcarehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/5535162/Nexthealth 5ngR1dklq Halper R JNJ BTW 2010-02-20 More on Health 2.0http://jnjbtw.com/2007/09/health-20-2/ 5ngSd70v0 Hawker M LeedsBlogs 2009-08-21 Health 2.0: Are we on the same page?https://elgg.leeds.ac.uk/hssmdh/weblog/14429.html 5q4d1fjAJ HealthCare Management 2010-02-24 Healthcaremanagementblog. The Health 2.0 Buzzhttp://healthcaremanagementblog.com/health-20/ 5nmUn8D4W Holt M 2009-09-14 Health 2.0 Definitionhttp://health20.org/wiki/Health_2.0_Definition 5jmdUXWbh Jessen W Highlight Health 2.0 2010-02-20 Medicine 2.0 #10–Medicine and the Second Generation of Internet-based Serviceshttp://blog.highlighthealth.info/medicine-20/medicine-20-10-medicine-and-the-second-generation-of-internet-based-services/ 5ngShFKAK Levine C Peterson L Communications MECA 2010-02-20 Are You Health 2.0 Ready?http://meca.ca/site/en/2009/06/15/are-you-health-20-ready/ 5ngSlfmNi Maun C RetirementHomes.com 2010-02-20 Maun C. Health 2.0: Take Advantage of the Technologyhttp://www.retirementhomes.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=858;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;page=last;guest=3191658&t=search_engine 5ngT3aUiY Moturu Sai T Liu Huan Johnson William G Trust evaluation in health information on the World Wide Web Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2008 2008 1525 8 19162962 10.1109/IEMBS.2008.4649459 Rampy A SocialButterfly 2010-02-20 Defining Health 2.0http://fly4change.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/defining-health-20/ 5ngT7Kglu RNCentral.com 2010-02-20 Top 50 Health 2.0 Blogshttp://www.rncentral.com/nursing-library/careplans/top_50_health_2.0_blogs 5ngTFW2CO Richlovsky P Fathom SEO 2009-08-21 Help Your Health Online: The 6 Coolest Free Web 2.0 Health Toolshttp://www.fathomseo.com/blog/index.php/2007/10/24/help-your-health-online-the-6-coolest-free-web-20-health-tools/ 5jBuY1BPE Sarasohn-Kahn J Social Media Strategery 2009-09-14 Crowdsourcing Our Health—Using Social Media to Educate and Unite the Publichttp://steveradick.com/2009/03/23/crowdsourcing-our-health-%E2%80%93-using-social-media-to-educate-and-unite-the-public/ 5jmdhFUOm Sharp J John W. Sharp on eHealth and Health IT 2010-02-24 Convergence of eHealth and Health 2.0?http://ehealth.johnwsharp.com/2009/09/15/convergence-of-ehealth-and-health-2-0/ 5nmWd0Mvg Shreeve S Crossover Health 2009-09-14 Health 2.0: The Definitionhttp://blog.crossoverhealth.com/2007/01/24/health-20-the-definition/ 5jmdm42UE Stokes U eDrugSearch.com 2009-09-14 Health 2.0 Interviewhttp://www.edrugsearch.com/edsblog/health-20-interview-series-unity-stoakes/ 5jmdpAWBg Susheel-Ommen J eHealth 2009-09-14 eHealth 2.0: Opportunities for public health informatics. 2007http://www.ehealthonline.org/ 5jmeF4j8I Tenderich A dLife 2010-02-20 Welcome to Health 2.0http://www.dlife.com/dLife/do/ShowContent/daily_living/Viewpoints/amy_oct07.html 5ngTRdU3P Torrey T About.com: Patient Empowerment 2009-08-21 Medicine 2.0 and Health 2.0http://patients.about.com/od/glossary/g/medicine20.htm 5jBuhDw5i Venn D Teen Mental Health Blog 2009-08-21 Health 2.0http://blog.teenmentalhealth.org/2008/11/03/what-is-health-20/ 5jBujADK2 Weisbaum W Healthcare Financial Management Association 2010-02-20 What is Health 2.0? 2007http://www.hfma-socal.org/newsbriefs/26_October%202007.pdf 5ngTaIkFC Williams P Cambridge Consultants 2009-09-14 What is Health 2.0?http://www.cambridgeconsultants.com/downloads/interface/44/health2.0.pdf 5jmdt6zzu Wright-Mark S Reuters 2010-02-20 Boston Becomes a Hotbed for Health 2.0http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS161578+18-Sep-2008+BW20080918 5ngTdnJaF Gavgani VZ Mohan VV Application of Web 2.0 Tools in Medical Librarianship to Support Medicine 2.0 Webology 2008 2009-08-21 5 1 http://www.webology.ir/2008/v5n1/a53.html 5jBsTGahB Spoetnik L Slideshare 2010-02-26 Introduction Medicine 2.0—Cochrane 2.0 Workshop, Cochrane Colloquium, Singaporehttp://www.slideshare.net/Laikaspoetnik/introduction-medicine-20-cochrane-20-workshop-cochrane-colloquium-singapore 5npgP5Qpl Berners-Lee T ars technica 2010-02-20 Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: "nobody even knows what it means.”http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/09/7650.ars 5q4dJwu1O Abbreviations ICT

information and communication technology

 IVF

in vitro fertilization