Health and Technology

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 37–50 | Cite as

Toward a typology of health 2.0 collaboration platforms and websites

Original Paper


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.


Health 2.0 Medicine 2.0 Health social media Virtual health communities Collaboration platforms Typology 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Truog RD. Patients and doctors—the evolution of a relationship. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(7):581–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fox S. Health Digital Divide. 2011. Accessed November 12, 2011.
  5. 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. Accessed November, 10 2011.
  6. 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).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adams SA. Revisiting the online health information reliability debate in the wake of. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(6):391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McAfee AP. Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration. Manag Technol Innov 2006;47(3).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bingsi F, Xiaojing H. Library 2.0: building the new library services [J]. J Acad Libr. 2006;1:2–5.Google Scholar
  10. 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).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fox S. Peer-to-peer Healthcare. 2011. Accessed 12 November 2011.
  12. 12.
    Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(3).Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keckley PH. Social Networks in Health Care: Communication, collaboration and insights. Deloitte Center for Health Solutions Retrieved from 2010.
  15. 15.
    Bennett E. Hospital Social Network List. 2011. Accessed December 4 2011.
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Porter CE. A Typology of Virtual Communities: A Multi–Disciplinary Foundation for Future Research. J Comput–Mediated Commun. 2004;10(1).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hara N, Shachaf P, Stoerger S. Online communities of practice typology revisited. J Inf Sci. 2009;35(6):740–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dubé L, Bourhis A, Jacob R. Towards a typology of virtual communities of practice. Interdiscip J Inf Knowl Manag. 2006;1(1).Google Scholar
  22. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Phan DD. E-business development for competitive advantages: a case study. Inf Manag. 2003;40(6):581–90.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Turban E, Lee JK, King D, Liang TP, Turban D. Electronic commerce 2010. Prentice Hall Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Constantinides E, Fountain SJ. Web 2.0: conceptual foundations and marketing issues. J Direct Data Digit Mark Pract. 2008;9(3):231–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hu Y, Shyam Sundar S. Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Commun Res. 2010;37(1):105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tanis M. Health-related on-line forums: what’s the big attraction? J Heal Commun. 2008;13(7):698–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ellison NB. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J Comput–mediated Commun. 2007;13(1):210–30.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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).Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parboosingh JT. Physician communities of practice: where learning and practice are inseparable. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2002;22(4):230–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nonnecke B, Preece J, editors. Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI); 2000: ACM.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IUPESM and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and Cyber Security, College of BusinessThe University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations