Health 2.0: Relational Resources for the Development of Quality in Healthcare


Traditional approaches in healthcare have been challenged giving way to broader forms of users’ participation in treatment. In this article we present the Health 2.0 movement as an example of relational and participatory practices in healthcare. Health 2.0 is an approach in which participation is the major aim, aspiring to reshape the system into more collaborative and less hierarchical relationships. We offer two illustrations in order to discuss how Health 2.0 is related and can contribute to a positive uptake of patient’s knowledge, which implies challenging healthcare practices exclusively focused on scientific expertise. In contrast, the illustrations we discuss focus on relations and cultural practices, searching for responsive and context-sensitive interventions, entertaining multiple views and allowing space for creativity. Finally we introduce two relational resources to contribute with the development and sustainability of Health 2.0 practices: Relational being and edge of fluidity. Those are resources aiming to engage professionals in a type of conversation with their clients, which is different from the hierarchical, linear and fact-oriented approach. This conversation aims at creating a space where the voices of all involved are welcomed, raising different opinions and points of view, bringing up new light and possibilities to the problem being investigated. These resources may be useful for those who are interested in improving quality in healthcare by investing in collaboration, contextual sensitivity and relational engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy (1st ed.). London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Baker-Ohler, M., & Holba, A. M. (2009). The communicative relationship between dialogue and care. Amherst: Cambria Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bloem, B. (2011). From God to Guide - TEDx Maastricht [internet]. Available from

  4. 4.

    Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 84–92.

  5. 5.

    Camargo-Borges, C., & Japur, M. (2006). Promoting and recovering health: Meanings produced in community groups within the family health program context. Interface, 2, 507–519.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Campos, C. W. S. (2000). Um método para análise e co-gestão de coletivos. São Paulo: Hucitec.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Corradi-Webster, C. M. (2009). Consumo problemático de bebidas alcoólicas por mulheres: discursos e histórias. University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, unpublished thesis.

  8. 8.

    Doherty, I. (2008). Web 2.0: A movement within the health community. Health Care and Informatics Review, 12(2), 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Engelen, L. (2011). Health 2.0—An update. The Netherlands: Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Engelen, L. (2011b). Listen to patients and crowdsourcing for life. TEDx Maastricht. Retrieved from

  11. 11.

    Gabardi, W. (2000). Negotiating postmodernism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Gergen, K. (2009). An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community (1st ed.). USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Guanaes, C., & Japur, M. (2001). Grupo de apoio com pacientes psiquiátricos ambulatoriais em contexto institucional: análise do manejo terapêutico. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 14, 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hansen, M. M. (2008). Versatile, immersive, creative and dynamic virtual 3-D healthcare learning environments: A review of the literature. Journal of Medical Internet Resources, 10(3), e26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–281.

  19. 19.

    Kirby, A. (2009). Digimodernism: How new technologies dismantle the postmodern and reconfigure our culture. New York: The Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Levy, P. (1990). Les Technologies de L’intelligence. Paris: La Decouverte.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). Postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. (1998). Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  23. 23.

    Merhy, E. E. (2000). Um ensaio sobre o médico e suas valises tecnológicas: contribuições para compreender as reestruturações produtivas do setor saúde. Interface - Comunicação, Saúde, Educação, 4, 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Moscheta, M. S. (2011). Responsividade como recurso relacional para a qualificação da assistência a saúde de lésbicas, gays, bissexuais, travestis e transexuais (PhD). University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, unpublished thesis.

  25. 25.

    Rasera, E. F., & Japur, M. (2003). Open support groups for persons living with HIV/AIDS: The construction of its homogeneity. Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), 8, 55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Shawyer, L. (2005). Nostalgic postmodernism: Postmodern therapy. Oakland: Paralogic Press.

  27. 27.

    Souza, L. V. (2011). Construindo o cuidado: a relação com o profissional de saúde nas práticas discursivas de pessoas diagnosticadas com transtornos alimentares (doutorado). University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, unpublished thesis.

  28. 28.

    Souza, L. V., & Moscheta, M. S. (2012). Client-professional communication and health assistance in Brazil: Social construction as resource for transformative action. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 22(3).

  29. 29.

    Starfield, B. (2001). New paradigms for quality in primary care. British Journal of General Practices, 51, 303–309.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Tronto, J. (1994). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Tuyl, van G. (2009). From engineer to co-creative catalyst: An inclusional and transformational journey. University of Bath, England, unpublished thesis.

  32. 32.

    Woolgar, S. (1996). Psychology qualitative methods and the ideas of science. In L. T. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. Leicester: BPS Books.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood, misunderstanding: Social identity and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Celiane Camargo-Borges.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Camargo-Borges, C., Moscheta, M.S. Health 2.0: Relational Resources for the Development of Quality in Healthcare. Health Care Anal 24, 338–348 (2016).

Download citation


  • Communication
  • Professional–patient relation
  • Participatory practices
  • Postmodernism
  • Quality of healthcare