What is eHealth?: a systematic review of published definitions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".