MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022626458

What is eHealth?: a systematic review of published definitions.

2005· review· en· W3022626458 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Oh, Carlos Rizo-Maestre, Murray Enkin, Alejandro R. Jadad

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthThe InternetMEDLINERelevance (law)World Wide WebComputer scienceHealth careInformation overloadMedicineInternet privacyData sciencePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The term eHealth is widely used by many individuals, academic institutions, professional bodies and funding organisations. It has become an accepted neologism despite the lack of an agreed-upon clear or precise definition. We believe that communication among the many individuals and organisations that use the term could be improved by comprehensive data about the range of meanings encompassed by the term. OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a systematic review of published, suggested or proposed definitions of eHealth. DATA SOURCES: Using hte search query string 'eHealth' OR 'e-Health' OR 'electronic health', we searched the following databases: Medline and Premedline (1996-June 2004), EMBASE (1980-May 2004), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2004), Web of Science (all years), Information Sciences Abstracts (1996-May 2004), Library Information Sciences Abstracts (1969-May 2004), and Wilson Business Abstracts (1982-March 2004), In addition, we searched dictionaries and an Internet search engine. STUDY SELECTION: We included any source published in either print format or on the Internet, available in English, and containing text that defines or attempts to define eHealth in explicit terms. Two of us independently reviewed titles and abstracts of citations identified in the bibliographic databases and Internet search, reaching consensus on relevance by discussion. DATA EXTRACTION: We retrieved relevant reports, articles, references, letters and websites containing definitions of eHealth. Two of us qualitatively analysed the definitions and coded them for content, emerging themes, patterns and novel ideas. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 51 unique definitions that we retrieved showed a wide range of themes, but no clear consensus about the meaning of the term eHealth. We identified two universal themes (health and technology) and six less general (commerce, activities, stakeholders, outcomes, place, and perspectives). CONCLUSIONS: The widespread use of the term eHealth suggests that it is an important concept, and that there is a tacit understanding of its meaning. This compendium of proposed definitions may improve communication among the many individuals and organisations that use the term.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207