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".
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |