Talking about diet is a good segue to diabetes and the issue of the Tech Elite. Diabetes is an equal opportunity disease. Well, not precisely since some populations are more predisposed than others. But it is one condition where all patients would benefit from ease of accesss to Participatory [???], such as with Diabetic Connect.

Back to the issue of the MEDICINE vs. HEALTH CARE. Who’s the audience? “Medicine” speaks to physicians but the products are for patients. Let’s go to the source and ask patients which they prefer or if they feel other words resonate with them. Perhaps a survey on a patient website. Let’s not forget to ask those who are not currently plugged in.

I was a bit down at the end of the first day after listening to several speakers talking about physician-driven systems, the paramount importance of xHR, and professionals exchanging data with each other. “If we save our own time then better patient care naturally follows”.

The technology enables a much closer contact between client and professional, better educated clients, and more individualized “concordant” care. Participation is the central message imho.

But I like calling the lifestyle Participatory Health and perhaps even calling the people involved Health Participants.

I understand the many negative connotations the word medicine can have, but I am hoping to help redeem the word with this wonderful new pairing and this approach to Health.

Thanks for the historical perspective. When you were discussing that, it all seemed “not for me.” Rather short-sighted of me, as it turned out. :)

Welcome, Joe. May our conversations here be worth your time.

I myself only crawled in 9 months ago and am now trying to shine flashlights from the inside to the outside.

We won’t have the answer until the “uncognoscenti” have crawled in and started “neo-scenti-ing.” Whenever that happens (as when AOL users swarmed CompuServe out of existence) the previous guard usually doesn’t like it, but we know how THAT ended: CompuServe users said “No no no, you guys are doing it all wrong,” they were vastly outnumbered, to the point where AOL *bought* CompuServe.

To the people I speak with, who are completely new to “e”, it’s health care, before during and after illnesses. The distinction between that and medicine doesn’t exist.

But I’m only committed to wording insofar as it furthers a conversation for change. And the only word I really care about in this case is participatory. Because for providers and patients alike, that’s a really new idea that requires rethinking a lot of things.

As described in Wikipedia, ‘medicine’ is derived from the latin medicina which means the art of healing. Its commonly accepted meaning today is “a range of health care practices evolved to maintain and restore health by the prevention and treatment of illness” thus covering the gamut of health concerns (outside of policy of course).

I do recognize that formal definitions are not the sole concern here; perceptions are critical. What say others on the subject?

We are also focused on explaining to doctors why it is beneficial for them to join the movement. We cannot do that if we call it Participatory Health.

But I do understand John’s Grohol mention of mental health and Lena Sorenson’s remarks about the supposedly wider meaning of healthcare.

It was indeed a great conference. I enjoyed meeting everyone associated with e-patients.net.

The key for Participatory Health to impact our society in a meaningful way is to have new solutions engage the people in our culture who are sick…and do so in a way that is cost effective. Not to engage the people who like to engage with new solutions.