More Health 2.0 media attention and a nice request list, by Matthew Holt
Modern Healthcare wrote about Health 2.0 today. Why they put my awful picture up instead of the nice one I sent them of Indu I don’t know! But the article is pretty good, even if Joseph Conn (the author) thinks that the term’s a fruit fly that is already growing whiskers! He spends a good deal of time explaining the Web 2.0 definition (O’Reilly’s) to the hospital crowd.
It’s a little frightening that when he asked why Health 2.0 was actually something new, I told him this:
“There were chat rooms in the 1990s, but what has happened quantitatively is the amount of content and the ease of availability of that content has changed enough and the tools have changed enough, that we have something that is so substantially different in healthcare that you can call it something different.
But I think I know what I meant!!
Apparently it’s part one of two, so we’re looking forward to the next one. Modern Healthcare is the best read trade magazine in health care, and at this stage for the Health 2.0 movement any publicity in the staid world of health care is good publicity.
Meanwhile, little surfing today brought me to Science Buzz which wrote about Health 2.0 (mostly Revolution Health) but had this nice request list for what Health 2.0 should do
A Health 2.0 community should help you:
* Figure out what the problem is (differential diagnosis)
* Decide on and apply a treatment plan
* Recommends doctors near to you that have experience with treating your problem
* Provides you with patient satisfaction data (based upon feedback from their previous patients) for various doctors.
* Provide access to forums (on line discussion) where people who have your problem can offer support or share what they have learned that might help you with your problem.