Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Toward a typology of health 2.0 collaboration platforms and websites

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

During the past decade, the proliferation of social media has infiltrated various sectors of social and business communications. Of particular interest is the growth of health related websites and the healthcare sector’s adoption of social media. In this paper, we develop a typology of Health 2.0 collaboration platforms and websites. Two major types of actors within Health 2.0 websites are health professionals (P) and health consumers (C). Each actor can serve as either support provider or support recipient. We focus on the six major Health 2.0 collaboration platforms including health blogs, physician-ratings, medicine-ratings, online health social networks, health discussion boards, and ask-a-doctor. We categorize these platforms into four major types including professional-to-professional (P2P), professional-to-consumer (P2C), consumer-to-consumer (C2C), and consumer-to-professional (C2P). Then, based on the combination of collaboration platforms provided by Health 2.0 websites, we categorize these websites into P2P, P2C, C2C, and C2P types. We describe each type and utilize the typology to investigate 20 Health 2.0 websites and the collaboration platforms they provide. Our typology can be used as groundwork for future research on health social media.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This definition is proposed for Medicine 2.0 in [10]. However, as they have mentioned in their article, Medicine 2.0 and Health 2.0 have been used interchangeably in the literature. Thus, we adopt this definition for Health 2.0 in this paper.

  2. Http://www.connect.mayoclinic.org

  3. A simplified definition of Electronic commerce or e-commerce is buying and selling over the Internet.

  4. For instance, http://blog.marketnet.com/index.php/2009/11/09/16-niche-healthcare-social-networks/ and http://healthcareers.about.com/od/advanceyourcareer/tp/MedicalSocialNetworkingCommunitiesOnline.htm

  5. For instance, http://www.alexa.com

  6. For instance, http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/health-websites

References

  1. Hawn C. Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how twitter, facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Heal Aff. 2009;28(2):361–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bosslet GT, Torke AM, Hickman SE, Terry CL, Helft PR. The patient–doctor relationship and online social networks: results of a national survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(10):1168–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Truog RD. Patients and doctors—the evolution of a relationship. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(7):581–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fox S. Health Digital Divide. 2011. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/HealthTopics.aspx. Accessed November 12, 2011.

  5. O'Reilly T. What is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. 2005. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html. Accessed November, 10 2011.

  6. Van De Belt TH, Engelen LJ, Berben SAA, Schoonhoven L. Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2).

  7. Adams SA. Revisiting the online health information reliability debate in the wake of. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(6):391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McAfee AP. Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration. Manag Technol Innov 2006;47(3).

  9. Bingsi F, Xiaojing H. Library 2.0: building the new library services [J]. J Acad Libr. 2006;1:2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(3).

  11. Fox S. Peer-to-peer Healthcare. 2011. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/P2Healthcare.aspx. Accessed 12 November 2011.

  12. Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(3).

  13. Schoon I. Teenage job aspirations and career attainment in adulthood: a 17-year follow-up study of teenagers who aspired to become scientists, health professionals, or engineers. Int J Behav Dev. 2001;25(2):124–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Keckley PH. Social Networks in Health Care: Communication, collaboration and insights. Deloitte Center for Health Solutions Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/US_CHS_2010SocialNetworks_070710.pdf. 2010.

  15. Bennett E. Hospital Social Network List. 2011. http://ebennett.org/hsnl/. Accessed December 4 2011.

  16. Swan M. Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(2):492–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Porter CE. A Typology of Virtual Communities: A Multi–Disciplinary Foundation for Future Research. J Comput–Mediated Commun. 2004;10(1).

  18. Hara N, Shachaf P, Stoerger S. Online communities of practice typology revisited. J Inf Sci. 2009;35(6):740–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Messinger PR, Stroulia E, Lyons K. A typology of virtual worlds: historical overview and future directions. J Virtual Worlds Res. 2008;1(1):1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stanoevska-Slabeva K, Schmid BF, editors. A typology of online communities and community supporting platforms. The 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS); 2001: IEEE.

  21. Dubé L, Bourhis A, Jacob R. Towards a typology of virtual communities of practice. Interdiscip J Inf Knowl Manag. 2006;1(1).

  22. Beijnum BJF, Pawar P, Dulawan C, Hermens H. Mobile virtual communities for telemedicine: research challenges and opportunities. Int J Comput Sci Appl. 2009;6(2):19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  23. El Morr C, Kawash J. Mobile virtual communities research: a synthesis of current trends and a look at future perspectives. Int J Web Based Communities. 2007;3(4):386–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Scanfeld D, Scanfeld V, Larson EL. Dissemination of health information through social networks: twitter and antibiotics. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38(3):182–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schein R, Wilson K, Keelan JE. Literature review on effectiveness of the use of social media: a report for peel public health. Region of Peel: Peel Public Health; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Weber-Jahnke J, Williams J. Anissa,“. Consumer Health Informatics Services-A Taxonomy”, Informational Privacy Interdisplinary Research Group (IPIRG), University of Victoria, BC, Canada. 2011.

  27. Nickerson R, Muntermann J, Varshney U, Isaac H, editors. Taxonomy development in information systems: Developing a taxonomy of mobile applications. European Conference in Information Systems; 2009.

  28. Phan DD. E-business development for competitive advantages: a case study. Inf Manag. 2003;40(6):581–90.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Turban E, Lee JK, King D, Liang TP, Turban D. Electronic commerce 2010. Prentice Hall Press; 2009.

  30. Constantinides E, Fountain SJ. Web 2.0: conceptual foundations and marketing issues. J Direct Data Digit Mark Pract. 2008;9(3):231–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hu Y, Shyam Sundar S. Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Commun Res. 2010;37(1):105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lagu T, Kaufman EJ, Asch DA, Armstrong K. Content of weblogs written by health professionals. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(10):1642–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tanis M. Health-related on-line forums: what’s the big attraction? J Heal Commun. 2008;13(7):698–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ellison NB. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J Comput–mediated Commun. 2007;13(1):210–30.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(9):942–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kadry B, Chu LF, Gammas D, Macario A. Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4).

  37. Chiu C, Hsu M, Wang E. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis Support Syst. 2006;42(3):1872–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wuyts K, Verhenneman G, Scandariato R, Joosen W, Dumortier J. What electronic health records don’t know just yet. A privacy analysis for patient communities and health records interaction. Health Technol. 2012:1–25.

  39. Parboosingh JT. Physician communities of practice: where learning and practice are inseparable. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2002;22(4):230–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Williams J, editor. Social networking applications in health care: threats to the privacy and security of health information. Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering in Health Care; 2010: ACM.

  41. Cotten SR, Gupta SS. Characteristics of online and offline health information seekers and factors that discriminate between them. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(9):1795–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nonnecke B, Preece J, editors. Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI); 2000: ACM.

  43. Preece J, Nonnecke B, Andrews D. The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Comput Hum Behav. 2004;20(2):201–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Panciera K, Priedhorsky R, Erickson T, Terveen L, editors. Lurking? cyclopaths?: a quantitative lifecycle analysis of user behavior in a geowiki. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI); 2010: ACM.

  45. Kordzadeh N, Liu ZC, Au YA, Clark JG, editors. Investigating the Reciprocal Relationships Within Health Virtual Communities. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS); 2012; Seattle, WA: AIS.

  46. Wang JH, Fu T, Lin HM, Chen H. A framework for exploring gray web forums: analysis of forum-based communities in Taiwan. Intell Secur Inform. 2006:498–503.

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems and Cyber Security, College of Business, The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX, 78249-0631, USA

    Nima Kordzadeh & John Warren

Authors
  1. Nima Kordzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Warren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nima Kordzadeh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kordzadeh, N., Warren, J. Toward a typology of health 2.0 collaboration platforms and websites. Health Technol. 3, 37–50 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0043-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0043-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation