Collaboration through ICT between Healthcare Professionals: The Social Requirements of Health 2.0 Applications

  • Pieter Duysburgh
  • An Jacobs
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 27)


Social requirements are defined as the users’ needs related to the use of an application in interaction with others. This paper aims to formulate social requirements of health 2.0 applications for professional healthcare workers. Collaboration is seen as the central characteristic of these applications. To detect the social requirements, we first identified four features that determine how healthcare professionals collaborate: (1) the professional status of healthcare professionals; (2) patient centeredness; (3) ambiguity in medicine and (4) complex organisation of healthcare. Based on these characteristics and findings of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) research in healthcare, we were able to formulate three social requirements for health 2.0 applications: (1) supported autonomy; (2) rationale in context; and (3) fluid collaboration. These requirements will serve as input for health 2.0 scenarios.


CSCW healthcare social requirements health 2.0 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    O’Reilly, T.: What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software (2005),
  2. 2.
    Giustini, D.: How Web 2.0 is changing medicine - Is a medical wikipedia the next step? British Medical Journal 333(7582), 1283–1284 (2006)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boulos, M.N.K., Wheeler, S.: The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and Libraries Journal 24(1), 2–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hughes, B., Joshi, I., Wareham, J.: Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J. Med. Internet. Res. 10(3), e23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eysenbach, G.: Medicine 2.0: Social Networking, Collaboration, Participation, Apomediation, and Openness. J. Med. Internet. Res. 10(3), e22 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duysburgh, P., Jacobs, A.: Back to the Future of Healthcare:Taking a closer Look at Health 2.0 Discourse (unpublished, 2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pilemalm, S., Timpka, T.: Third generation participatory design in health informatics–Making user participation applicable to large-scale information system projects. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 41(2), 327–339 (2008)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grudin, J.: Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Commun. ACM 37(1), 92–105 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ackerman, M.S.: The intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Human-Computer Interaction 15(2-3), 179–203 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanders, E., Stappers, P.J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4, 5–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrison, S., Tater, D., Sengers, P.: The Three Paradigms of HCI. In: alt.chi Conference (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaper, L.K., Pervan, G.P.: ICT and OTs: a model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. Int. J. Med. Inform. 76(Suppl.1), S212–S221 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    England, I., Stewart, D.: Executive management and IT innovation in health: identifying the barriers to adoption. Health Informatics Journal 13(2), 75–87 (2007)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McKinlay, J.B., Marceau, L.D.: The end of the golden age of doctoring. International Journal of Health Services 32(2), 379–416 (2002)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaplan, B.: Evaluating informatics applications - some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. International Journal of Medical Informatics 64(1), 39–55 (2001)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen, T.B., Aanestad, M.: How healthcare professionals “make sense” of an electronic patient record adoption. Information Systems Management 24(1), 29–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reddy, M., et al.: Sociotechnical requirements analysis for clinical systems. Methods of Information in Medicine 42(4), 437–444 (2003)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berg, M.: Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. International Journal of Medical Informatics 55(2), 87–101 (1999)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dreiseitl, S., Binder, M.: Do physicians value decision support? A look at the effect of decision support systems on physician opinion. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 33(1), 25–30 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winthereik, B.R., Vikkelsø, S.: ICT and Integrated Care: Some Dilemmas of Standardising Inter-Organisational Communication. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 14(1), 43–67 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trivedi, M., et al.: Barriers to implementation of a computerized decision support system for depression: an observational report on lessons learned in real world clinical settings. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 9(1), 6 (2009)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sicotte, C., Denis, J.L., Lehoux, P.: The Computer Based Patient Record: A Strategic Issue in Process Innovation. Journal of Medical Systems 22(6), 431–443 (1998)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Duysburgh
    • 1
  • An Jacobs
    • 1
  1. 1.IBBT – SMIT / VUBEtterbeekBelgium

Personalised recommendations