A4 Refereed article in a conference publication
PHR, We've Had a Problem Here
Authors: Minna M. Rantanen, Jani Koskinen
Editors: David Kreps, Charles Ess, Louise Leenen, Kai Kimppa
Conference name: IFIP TC9 Human Choice and Computers Conference
Publication year: 2018
Book title : This Changes Everything – ICT and Climate Change: What Can We Do?
Journal name in source: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology
Series title: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology
Number in series: 537
Volume: 537
First page : 374
Last page: 383
ISBN: 978-3-319-99604-2
eISBN: 978-3-319-99605-9
ISSN: 1868-4238
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99605-9_28
Web address : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99605-9_28
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/36004816
Personal health records (PHRs) have been a global trend in recent decade. It has been seen as a concept and tool that could help patients maintaining health, improving their well-being, and supporting communication with healthcare professional etc. Despite the great amount of research about PHR there is no consensus what a PHR actually means in academic literature or other arenas. There are multiple terms in use and multiple de nitions which set challenges for rational discourse between citizens/patient, healthcare providers, system developers and policy makers. Especially, when citizens | as key stakeholder | should also be able to understand what those systems are we need clear and understandable de nition for PHR's. In the paper, we conduct a brief survey for dierent de nitions and show the problems that arise with the incoherent use of the term "PHR".
Keywords:
Definition, Personal health record, PHR, Quasi-rational discourse, rational discourse
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |