Collaborative Healthware

  • D. Goldsmith
  • C. Safran
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


Patients are demanding a more substantive, collaborative role in their own healthcare decision making. Collaborative healthware is the application of in­formation and communication technologies designed to enhance decision making and communication between providers, patients, and their families. The emergence of collaborative healthware will play an important role in sup­porting the relationship between patient and provider and will assist patients in better understanding their illness experience and how their own values af­fect decision making. Collaborative healthware is defined as “software for healthcare, tightly integrated with people systems”1 and its creative and suc­cessful implementation will improve patient care and care management.


Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Internet User Consumer Informatics National Health Information Infrastructure NICU Stay 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Safran C. The collaborative edge: patient empowerment for vulnerable populations. lnt J Med Informatics 2002;1–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferguson T. Consumer health informatics. HealthCare Forum 1995; 28–33.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Brandt AM. Electronic patient-physician communication: problems and promise. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129 (6): 495–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Slack VW. Cybermedicine: how computing empowers patients for better healthcare. Medinfo 1998; I :3–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brennan PF. Health informatics and community health: support for patients as collaborators in care. Methods Inform Med 1999; 38 (4-5): 274–278.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brennan PF, Ripich S. Use of a home care computer network by persons with AIDS. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1994; 10 (2): 258–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferguson T. Online patient-helpers and physicians working together: a new patient collaboration for high quality health care. BMJ 2000; 321 (7269): 1129–1132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gustafson DH, Hawkins RP, Boberg EW, et al. CHESS: ten years of research and development in consumer health informatics for broad populations, including the underserved. Medinfo 2001; 10 (2): 14590–1563.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Porter SC. Patients as experts: a collaborative performance support system. Proc AMIA Symposium 2001; 548–552.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M. Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behav Med 1998; 24 (2): 81–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brennan PF, Strombom 1. Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. JAMIA 1998; 5 (3): 257–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tang PC, Newcomb C, Gorden S, Kreider N. Meeting the information needs of patients: results from a patient focus group. Proc AMIA Annual Fall Symposium 1997; 672–676.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaplan B, Brennan PF. Consumer informatics: supporting patients as co-producers of quality. JAMIA 2001; 8 (4): 309–316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldsmith D, Silverman LB, Safran C. (2002). Pediatric Cancer CareLink: supporting home management of childhood leukemia. Proc AMIA Symposium 2002; 290–294.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tang PC, Newcomb C. Informing patients: a guide for providing patient health information. JAMIA 1998; 5 (6): 563–570.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slack VW, Slack CW. Patient computer dialog. N Engl J Med 1972; 286 (24): 1304–1309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landro L. Patient-physician communication: an emerging partnership. Oncologist 1999; 4 (1): 55–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brennan PF. Characterizing the use of health care services delivered via computer networks. JAMIA 1995; 2 (3): 160–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldsmith D, Safran C. Using the web to reduce postoperative pain following ambulatory surgery. Proc AMIA Symposium 1999; 6: 780–784.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gray J, Safran C, Weitzner GP, Steward JE, Zaccagnini L, Pursley D. Baby CareLink: using the Internet and telemedicine to improve care for high-risk infants. Pediatrics 2000; 106: 1318–1324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gustafson DH, McTavish F, Hawkins RP, et al. Computer support for elderly women with breast cancer. JAMA 1998; 280 (15): 1305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Safran C, Jones PC, Rind D, Bush B, Cytryn KN, Patel VL. Electronic communication and collaboration in a health care practice. Artif Intell Med 1998; 12 (2): 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vandenberg TA, Gustafson DH, Owen B, et al. Interaction between the breast cancer patient and the health care system. Cancer Prevent Control 1997; 1 (2): 152–153.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eng T, Gustafson D, eds. Wired for health and well being: the emergence of interactive health communication. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gustafson DH, McTavish F, Boberg E, et al. Empowering patients using computer based health support systems. Qual Health Care 1999; 8 (1): 49–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldberg HS, Safran C. Support for the cancer patient: an Internet model. In: Silva J, Ball MJ, Chute CG, et al., eds. Cancer informatics: essential technologies for clinical trials. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002: 280–292.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldberg HS, Morales A, Gottlieb L, Meador L, Safran C. Reinventing patient centered computing for the twenty-first century. In: Patel V, et al., eds. Medinfo 2001. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2001: 1455–1458.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    U.S. Department of Commerce. A nation online: how Americans are expanding their use of the Internet., 2002.
  29. 29.
    Manhattan Research. For 124.7 million Americans, the Internet is no longer considered “alternative medicine.” October 17, 2002 news release., 2002.
  30. 30.
    Eng TR, Maxfield A, Patrick K, Deering MJ, Ratzan S, Gustafson D. Access to health information and support: a public highway or a private road? JAMA 1998; 280: 1371–1375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Information for health: a strategy for building the National Health information Infrastructure. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Healthy People 2010. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.; http://odphp.; Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ries LAG, Smith MA, Gurney JG, et al. Cancer incidence and survival among children and adolescents: United States SEER Program 1975–1995. NIH publication No. 99-4649. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1999.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Silverman LB, Gelber RD, Dalton VK, et al. Improved outcome for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of Dana-Farber Consortium Protocol 91-01. Blood 2001; 97: 1211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hooker L, Kohler J. Safety, efficacy, and acceptability of home intravenous therapy administered by parents of pediatric oncology patients. Med Pediatr Oncol 1999; 32 (6): 421–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Close P, Burkey E, Kazak A, Lange B. (1995). A prospective, controlled evaluation of home chemotherapy for children with cancer. Pediatrics, 1995; 95 (6): 896–9003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Davies HA, Lilleyman JS. Compliance with oral chemotherapy in childhood lymphoblastic leukaemia. Cancer Treat Rev 1995; 21 (2): 93–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tetzlaff L. Consumer informatics in chronic illness. JAMIA 1997; 4 (4): 285–3006.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Goldsmith
  • C. Safran

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations