% 0期刊文章% @ 1438 - 8871 V %我Gunther Eysenbach % 10% 3% N P e23 % T健康2.0和2.0医学:紧张和争议%休斯,本杰明%乔希,因陀罗% Wareham,乔纳森% +部门信息系统,雷蒙Llull大学ESADE, 60 - 62 Av。Pedralbes园林,08034年巴塞罗那,西班牙+ 34 697 883 393,benjamin.hughes@alumni.esade.edu Web 2.0% K药2.0% K健康2.0% % K D 2008% 7 6.8.2008 % 9审查% J J互联网Res % G英语% X背景:Web 2.0这个术语在2004年O 'Reilly媒体Web 2.0会议之后开始流行起来;然而，在将其应用于保健和医学方面存在困难。主要是，O 'Reilly发布的定义被批评为太模糊，而其他作者声称Web 2.0实际上并不存在。尽管存在这种怀疑，使用Web 2.0工具进行医疗保健的在线社区仍在继续增长，医学2.0这个术语已经进入了流行术语。目的:本文旨在为医学2.0建立一个清晰的定义，并勾勒出该领域特有的文献。此外，我们提出了一个框架来分类现有的医学2.0文献，并确定关键的研究主题，欠发达的研究领域，以及医学2.0的不同利益群体的潜在紧张或争议。方法:在第一阶段，我们采用在线定义的专题分析，即医学2.0社区本身中最重要的链接论文、网站或博客。在第二阶段，这一定义将应用于一系列学术论文，以回顾医学2.0的核心文献基础，从更广泛的电子健康概念中描述它。结果:术语医学2.0和健康2.0被发现非常相似，并包含五个主要的突出主题:(1)所涉及的参与者(医生、患者等); (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; and (5) its associated method- and tool-related issues, such as potential inaccuracy in enduser-generated content. In comparing definitions of Medicine 2.0 to eHealth, key distinctions are made by the collaborative nature of Medicine 2.0 and its emphasis on personalized health care. However, other elements such as health or medical education remain common for both categories. In addition, this emphasis on personalized health care is not a salient theme within the academic literature. Of 2405 papers originally identified as potentially relevant, we found 56 articles that were exclusively focused on Medicine 2.0 as opposed to wider eHealth discussions. Four major tensions or debates between stakeholders were found in this literature, including (1) the lack of clear Medicine 2.0 definitions, (2) tension due to the loss of control over information as perceived by doctors, (3) the safety issues of inaccurate information, and (4) ownership and privacy issues with the growing body of information created by Medicine 2.0. Conclusion: This paper is distinguished from previous reviews in that earlier studies mainly introduced specific Medicine 2.0 tools. In addressing the field’s definition via empirical online data, it establishes a literature base and delineates key topics for future research into Medicine 2.0, distinct to that of eHealth. %M 18682374 %R 10.2196/jmir.1056 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2008/3/e23/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1056 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18682374