Jump to content

Talk:Health informatics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Commercial links?

The original and official website of Care2x is www.care2x.org. The care2x.de is a private website which is not officially sanctioned by the care2x project.

Can we please get rid of all those external links, excluding the professional societies? JFW | T@lk 06:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are links to commercial sites from an "academic" article legitimate? Codish 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but only if they are notable compared to the many other commercial equivalents (or if all of a discrete number of commercial links were included perhaps) Donama 22:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see MediTech is listed under links - why not all other vendors of healthcare IT? Codish 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point - removed Donama 22:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Stevecalloway 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Health informatics not Medical informatics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Article moved to Health informatics (c. December 2005) --KarlB (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Informatics is an issue for all of healthcare and healthcare is far broader than medicine. The accepted overarching term is ‘health informatics’. This banner of Medical Informatics needs to be changed to health informatics and Medical Informatics shown as a sub specialty. MoyaC

Agree. That means this article should be renamed to Health informatics and a section added to that called "Medical informatics" containing much of current content. If there is no dissent over the next few day we should go ahead and do it. I think there is the same problem with EMR article vs EHR article. Let's get it right! Donama 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I must disagree. Most currenlty consider these terms to be synonymous. Medical Informatics, Health Informatics, and Biomedical Informatics are often used interchangeably. Most in the field do not consider one to be a sub-domain of any other (as opposed to "clinical informatics" which is a sub-domain of the larger field - whatever we want to call it). Although some people are of the opinion that one term is preferred to another, there is not yet concensus on which is the "correct" choice. I'd point out the the American Medical Informatics Association hasn't changed its name though it clearly is the lead academic organization for this field. Likewise, there are many academic Informatics departments at universities across the globe that have taken any of the three variations above as their name. Hersh touches on this in his 2002 JAMA article http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/288/16/1955. In it he states, "Some have argued that the adjective medical in front of informatics is inappropriate because it implies the work of physicians and not the remainder of health care and biomedical science. However, this name has achieved widespread usage. In the article by Kukafka et al, Shortliffe described medical informatics as the broad term representing the core theories, concepts, and techniques of information applications in health and biomedicine, with the other adjectives preceding the word informatics denoting the specific application area. Core themes that emerge from informatics science (standards, terminology, usability, and demonstrated value) are relevant across all levels of medical informatics, not solely clinical informatics." As you can see by this description, clinical informatics refers to the "informatics of clinical medicince", but the term "Medical Informatics" is the broader term for the informatics of the whole field of "Medicine" or "Health". So, I suggest consideration be given to dealing with these as synonyms for now. This issue may be resolved in time as one term rises as the preferred one. But, until then, I'd not remove Medical Informatics and I certainly wouldn't make it part of Health Informatics. Infomd 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, but action is still required here. It is not Wikipedia policy to maintain 2 separate articles for two synonymous terms. A choice must be made on the most appropriate term internationally (which I think is health informatics) and the article should be maintained there in ONE place. What do you think? Donama 03:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
That's one of the points I was trying to make above - there is no concensus, even internationally, on what is the one most appropriate term. For instance, the international organization that is a cousin to the US one I mentioned above is International Medical Informatics Association - http://www.imia.org/ Also, for what it's worth, the term "Medical Informatics" earns 5,200,000 hits on Google while "Health Informatics" only 1,620,000 hits. So, for now, I guess I'd vote to leave it as is. I notice that the term "Health Informatics" already redirects people to "Medical Informatics", so to my mind, no further action is required right now. Having made that case as best I can, if there is strong feeling on the other side, I won't stand in the way; Which ever is chosen, I'm more concerned that the article clearly comment that these are synonyms rather than conflusing "Medical Informatics" for "Clinical Informatics" or "Physician Informatics" as sometimes happens in other venues. On a personal note, I happen to be fine with Health Informatics as a descriptor; I just think the choice at this point is arbritrary as there is no concensus. So, reasonable to leave as is for now? Infomd 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Even if we can't choose the most appropriate term, we have to select a term. I think we should favour "health informatics" as the title here, because it is the broader, more encompassing term. Two articles for synonymous terms is not okay. I myself put in the redirect from "Health informatics", just a few months back because I was disappointed to find no article for it and didn't want others to have to search like me or to go ahead and start writing the article. This is probably what stops content from being there in the first place. I don't think it offers any indication that the term "health informatics" is a less favoured term. A note on Googlefights -- in a case like this where we are talking about North America vs the rest of the English-speaking world, the odds are stacked to give the American term the advantage regardless of whether it is more correct because there are - and have been since 1995 - more Internet users there than any other English-speaking region. Donama 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll take your points one by one and try to explain (and I'd ask you read this without assuming anyting about my motives or biases just because I happen to be North American - as I'll point out below, this particular argumetn is by no means settled in North America either. It's just that this is my field, and I felt compelled to correct the rather narrow definition that existed for Medical Informatics before I altered it a few days ago. So, to your points...
Regarding your reiteration that, "Even if we can't choose the most appropriate term, we have to select a term...," I got that point the first time you raised it - really - and I voted for one of them. My vote was to leave Medical Informatis as the term. Clearly you're voting for the other, and that's fine, but I did choose one. I realize that many feel differently about which is right - hence the need for this discussion.
Regarding the Google issue - point taken - if you read my post above you'll note I said - "for what it's worth".
Regarding the fact that there's nothing currently in the Health Informatics section because of your prior redirect - I'm sure you're right. I didn't presume that just because there was nothing there that meant people didn't think it was a relevant term. I recognize that there are many pushing for "Health Informatics" to be the accepted term, just as there are many pushing to hold onto the historical term that is Medical Informatics.
Regarding your North America vs. rest of the English-speaking world remark, I know you were making a Googlefight point, but I'm afraid it might also represent a misunderstanding on your part of this particular issue in North America. It's wrong to assume (if you do) that the term "Medical Informatics" is clearly preferred within North America. In fact, there is considerable disagreement WITHIN North America about what the term should be for our discipline. Also, as I pointed out, with my reference to IMIA, there are those in the International community who continue to use "Medical Informatics' (e.g. IMIA, the International MEDICAL INFORMATICS Association represents, well, the International Medical Informatics community), though I conceed that in Australia and the UK in particular "Health Informatics" seems to be predominate. Also, you might be interested to know that the term actually has its origins in Russia "informatika", and was popularized in France in the late 1960's "informatique de medecine" where university departments took that title, before it was first adopted in the US in the 1970s (replacing "Medical Information Science" and other titles).
So, the point I'm making is that there is considerable evidence that there is not a clear choice for what the appropriate term should be. You seem to think you know which term is most appropriate. You may be right, but all you've presented your contention. I've tried to present some sources to make the case for two things: 1) that "Medical Informatics" isn't a less broad, sub-discipline of "Health Informatics" as had been suggested in the last version of this article before I changed it and in your earlier post, and 2) that according to the academic literature and certain relevant professional organizations, it's not so clear-cut which term should be. So, I voted to maintain the status quo in my last post.
Having said all of that, allow me to offer these conclusions and a suggestion to hopefully move us ahead:
1) Let's agree to disagree about whether there is a most appropriate term (not what it is, but whether there is one)
2) The fact is that Health Informatics is synonymous with Medical Informatics and Biomedical Informatics. One is not the broader or more encompassing term for the discipline. They are truly synonymous when used as intended - (again I refer to Hersh's article, and I can produce other sources to back this up - we can even discuss it in historical terms in the article with supportive citations if necessary). However...
3) Since there is not concensus as to which is the most appropriate term, either within North America or Internationally, we can pick any one we want (and someone will always disagree), and...
4) Since we don't want to have duplicate articles for these synonyms.
5) So, since I see the choice as nearly a toss-up between the three contenders above, and I tend to believe that "Health Informatics" will be more palatable to most readers, and ...
6) In the interest of international wiki-harmony, I'll happily change my prior vote to support going with "Health Informatics" instead of "Medical Informatics".
In conclusion, I propose that unless others weigh in, we agree to make the change to Health Informatics as the main term.
(If you'd like to take care of this, I'll also point out that there are two versions of Health Informatics one with the upper case "Informatics" - Health Informatics which currently points to Health care informatics and the other with a lowercase "informatics" - Health informatics which currently points to the article under discussion here, Medical Informatics.
Thanks for a lively discussion and best wishes for a happy holiday season.Infomd 05:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
On another note, I believe the same redirection as has been done with health informatics is necessary for the current biomedical informatics and health care informatics articles. Again, some would argue that one of these terms and not "Medical Informatics" should be the top banner name for the discipline, but... Actually, one thing I do feel strongly about is that health care informatics is not the "right choice" because that does exclude non "care" related aspects of Medicine like Basic Science - or Bioinformatics. (Oh, and this may not need to be said, but sub domains like bioinformatics and clinical informatics should have their own articles - whew! Infomd 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You could perform these merges and redirects if necessary, but it would need to be raised on the relevant talk pages. Donama 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Finally, I agree with the other comment above regarding EHR/EMR. Here, I believe it's clear from the literature that EHR has become the accepted term, so I'd agree with changing that to have EMR point to EHR and let EHR be the main term. Thanks for the discussion; happy to continue it as needed. Infomd 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, this is a discussion for the EHR/EMR talk pages. Since both contain content, they'd have to be merged too so it's not trivial. (At least for redirecting this (medical informatics) article no merge would be required) Donama 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the education as to procedure here - I'm new to Wikipedia and this is appreicated - sincerely.Infomd 05:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Biomedical Informatics encompasses Health or Medical Informatics (EHRs/EMRs, Decision Support Systems, etc), Bioinformatics (sequencing, pharmacogenomics, etc.), Imaging Informatics and Public Health Informatics.


Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia also, but find this article on Health or Medical Informatics both woefully inadequate, and also flat our wrong.

There is no mention of Homer "Pug" Warner, the father of medical informatics.

All of this is clearly detailed in the book "The History Of Medicine In the Beehive State".

Do your homework guys!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.48.39 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Found him, created Homer R. Warner, and referenced him on this article. Thanks for the lead --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Request reason: Health informatics and Medical informatics are synonymous and both widely used. In English terms, health informatics is the more all-encompassing term Donama 22:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please use the above section "Health informatics not Medical informatics" to discuss this move.

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Result

Moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove 'Medical Informatics Public Utility' section?

This section seems out of place in this article. The author of this section clearly believes strongly in the (patented) concept but I don't think many other people working in the field would necessarily endorse this approach to this problem. The Utility is a solution for a problem of a sub-category of the field of 'Health Informatics', being part of 'Medical Informatics' and being a method to address a specific problem. There are many different problems and each has many potential solutions and these should be discussed in appropriate sections (not here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhspohr (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section, because besides its other problems, it was copied word for word from this website: [1]Mysteryquest (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Medical computing

The title Health informatics does not sound right to me - it seems to be jargon with overtones of POV/COI - pushing particular professional associations perhaps. I prefer the term Medical computing which seems better for our encyclopedic purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm actually an expert in the area of health information technology (HIT) which is the global term used to describe several concepts like health informatics of which medical, nursing, and public health informatics are specialty areas. Also, what you describe as medical computing is actually health technology, yet another part of HIT. So, I think the real issue with this page is the spread that has occured since the vote nearly three years ago to consider health informatic and medical informatics one in the same. I've created a page called Health Information Technolgy that will link with patient safety and this health informatics page. Although I am quite busy (and newer to constructing these pages), I'll attempt to make some of the linkages over the next couple of months. I am sad to see the relative lack of discussion on this page since it's such a huge topic in healthcare. P.A.P. (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Health_informatics#Health_informatics_in_New_Zealand

I'd like to see something other than the homepage for the item listed. I replaced the primary source with a {{fact}} tag. Those types of "references" are called primary sources and are debatable in value. These types of sections in Wikipedia attract a lot of spam. I will follow up on this. E_dog95' Hi ' 22:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Just chiming it to say that I'm well aware of the COI policy, I just genuinely feel that a reference to epSOS as an EC project seems adequate in this context - as a large scale pilot, it is among the most important European projects in the field of (open) Health informatics. I also feel it's better to make my project involvement clear instead of hiding it behind some generic user name / IP adress. If you find another equally sensible reference in this context, I certainly wouldn't object, but I hope you agree that the COI policy doesn't warrant deletion in this case since the information value of the reference is genuine. Epsos (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in mentioning that the EU has this project.
Your about page says that it's organized by "27 beneficiaries representing twelve EU-member states, including ministries of health, national competence centres and numerous companies". At most, we should cite directly one of the sources in the press section instead of linking directly the project's website. I leave you a message in your talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving "History of Health Informatics in the UK" section?

I'm new to Wikipedia, but I was hoping i could help out addressing some of the issues with this article. I'd like move the section on the History of Health informatics in the UK out of the "current state" section and up into the general History section. Any thoughts? Thanks for your help! Jennifer Teplits (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

clean up

This article is in need of work and clean up. I'd like to propose that all of the sections that outline various informatics associations/societies on a per-country basis be moved to their own page; perhaps a brief description here of IMIA and ISFTEH (as the two global umbrella organizations), then a separate page detailing health informatics associations/societies in each country as necessary.

Similarly, I think the 'education' section needs to be beefed out; I propose to create a new page for 'health informatics education', that would then outline a history of health informatics education and link to any notable programs around the world on this topic. Then we could have a 'list of health informatics programs', similar to this one: List_of_medical_schools_in_the_United_States. Your thoughts are welcome on these suggested edits.--Karl.brown (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge public health informatics here?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge --KarlB (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I see this merge has been proposed but no discussion. In absence of any discussion I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but would support it being merged here for the time being. — Donama 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Public Health Informatics is only a small subset of Health (actually healthcare) Informatics. It should certainly not be merged. I am removing the Merge banner. Supten 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that public health informatics is a small subset of health informatics is why it is a candidate for a merge in the first place. No one is trying to say that public health informatics simplistically equates to health informatics. The question is whether public health informatics is a big enough topic on it's own to grow beyond being a subsection of this article. If so, we should keep things as they are now. — Donama 08:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I am currently pursuing a masters degree in public health informatics. I think if there's enough material to get an MPH in it, there's certainly enough material to write a decent article on it. Try a Medline/Ovid search on the topic and check out the numbers for a quick "infodemiological" test. I can work on the article after June Term ends and I get my life back, okay? Museumfreak
I support merging. Please consider that there is great value to the nonmedical, non-IT user of Wikipedia in merging the articles Health informatics, Public health informatics, Biomedical informatics and Bioinformatics into a common article with subsections explaining the distinctions and expanding each topic. Fragmentation of a field is a real problem in Wikipedia, and makes it difficult for users to get fully informed about a topic if they aren't aware of the terms and nuances. Instead of an encyclopedic approach, many small and often incomplete articles are written. Reading these 4 articles, it is hard to see these similarities and distinctions. Given the lead sentence of each article being so similar, I don't think a disambiguation page with a sentence on each topic would be helpful either.--Ryanjo 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well okay, maybe not Bioinformatics, it seems to be more a branch of biology, not IT.--Ryanjo 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not support Ryanjo's premise, so I do not support merging for that reason. I like the fact that Wikipedia consists of many small articles joined by hyperlinks. I think it would be a step in the wrong direction to merge related articles just to create a more organized, larger article. If several related fields form a larger, more general area of knowledge, then an umbrella article could be written differentiating the related fields; the individual field articles could point back to the umbrella article. For instance, is "Health Informatics" the umbrella term, and are "Medical Informatics", "Public Health Informatics", "Biomedical Informatics" the sub-fields? I don't know if this is the precise breakdown, but you get the idea. In terms of size, I think the Public Health Informatics article is plenty big to stand on its own, plus it has been cited for not having a worldwide perspective, so it really needs to be enlarged. pojoman

I do not support merging. Public Health informatics is focused on population based terminology and use cases. It is not focused on clinical terminology and workflow. It is a growing field. Many US realm national organizations depend upon it as do international such as WHO. Population based statistical analysis is inherently different than patient based. Next, there are supporting HL7 Message constructs and vocabulary terminology binding to public health messages. This is created by CDC in the US. PHI supports Epidemiology and population based indicator analysis. (Gautam) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.138.75 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not support merging for similar reasons to others cited here: in the same way that Public Health is a field very distinct from Health Care, the use of informatics in both fields is very distinct. There are books and there are degree programs in Public Health Informatics. That's enough for a stand-alone article. pojoman

I support merging. They are distinct fields, but they operate under the same premise, the health/medical field. Public Health Informatics gets a lot of their work, data, and research through medical programs, including clinical informatics (aka health informatics...aka medical informatics).--Snipun (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not support merging. Public Health Informatics is distinct from Medical (or Clinical) Informatics (MI), in that it has much more focus on population statistics (vs. individual care), and includes environmental health. Public Health Informatics (PHI) is a very undeveloped field, compared to Medical Informatics, which many refer to as Health Informatics. While PHI and MI could be sections within a Health Informatics entry, I think the either the overarching health informatics text would be so short as to be not very useful, or would be full of information very oriented to MI and not PHI. It might be better to merge Health Informatics with a general Informatics entry, and keep separate MI and PHI entries. Note that while population health information may be informed by clinical data, clinical data is not representative of population health (it only represents those who access care, introducing a lot a bias along the lines of health care insurance coverage and other things). Public health informatics includes population surveys, water quality data, food safety data (from restaurant and grocery inspections, food manufacturer inspections, ...), built environment information, etc. It has some overlap with Medical Informatics, but is not nearly the same as Medical Informatics. Cowboyjo (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Integrate biomedical informatics

AMIA, the American Medical Informatics Association, has just published a paper clarifying the definition of biomedical informatics as a core discipline for health informatics (clinical and population informatics). Definition: "Biomedical informatics (BMI) is the interdisciplinary field that studies and pursues the effective uses of biomedical data, information, and knowledge for scientific inquiry, problem solving, and decision making, driven by efforts to improve human health." See Kulikowski CA, Shortliffe EH, Currie LM, Elkin PL, Hunter LE, Johnson TR, Kalet IJ, Lenert LA, Musen MA, Ozbolt JG, Smith JW, Tarczy-Hornoch PZ, Williamson JJ. AMIA Board white paper: definition of biomedical informatics and specification of core competencies for graduate education in the discipline. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 2012. [PubMed: 22683918] [1] As a newbie at Wiki editing (though one with a PhD in Biomedical Informatics), I would appreciate suggestions as how this information should be incorporated into the article. Thanks. Frostback64 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Misleading of 'China' and 'Hong Kong'

Hi Author,

I went through your article and noticed that some information which under Current state of health informatics and policy initiatives is kind of misleading. As People's Republic of China is the formal name of China in terms of an international website, it is a better way to change the subheading 'China' to 'People's Republic of China' or 'PRC'. Moreover, please move both the subheading 'Hong Kong' and the information under it as the sub-subheading of 'People's Republic of China' because Hong Kong is a special administrative region of People's Republic of China. This could give people an explicit map about a country and the region within it.

Toni Lee (Tong Li) (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary of My Editing and Working Plan

Summary

Since middle 1990s, China started to gather significant resources to establish health information system (HIS) initially. However in most hospitals, HIS functions within Hospital Management Information (HMIS) which is mainly operated financially, rather than focusing on promoting the development of patient-first Clinical Information System (CIS). By 2004 significant development of health informatics is being performed in China. About 35%-40% of hospitals have built their own hospital information system. However the lack of standards could lead to issues of resource wasting. To solve this problem, stakeholders of health informatics started to introduce the vocabulary, classification, coding standards. Furthermore, a consistent national system is necessary to minimise the negative impacts generated from conflict of multiple system. Therefore, three certain projects were released, including Chinese National Health Information Framework and Standardization, Basic Data Set Standards of Hospital Information System and Basic Data Set Standards of Public Health Information System.

Plan

I will organise my description following the next writing plan. Initially, I will mainly mention about the significant development of China’s healthcare system, and then focus on the negative impacts from lacking consistent healthcare standards. After that I will introduce the three specific projects hosted by China’s health department.

Bibliography

The following articles are the relevant resources I may be use:

G,Y. Yu. (2000). Establishment and application of “No. 1 Military” Project. Hospital Administration Journal of Chinese, PLA 7(6), 402–404 (Chinese).

H, Liang. & Y, Xue. (2004). Investigating public health emergency response information system initiatives in China, International Journal of Medical Informatics, (73), 675–685.

J, Guo., A, Takada., T, Niu., M, He., K, Tanaka., J, Sato., M, Suzuki., K, Takahashi., H, Daimon., T, Suzuki., Y, Nakashima., K, Araki., & H, Yoshihara. (2005). Enhancement of CLAIM (clinical accounting information) for a localized Chinese version. Journal of Medical System, 29(5), 463–471.

K, Q, Rao., C, Y, Wang., & J, P, Hu. (2004). Introduction of the National Public Health Emergency Response Information Systems Project, Chin. Journal of Medical Information Management, (1), 2–5 (Chinese).

L, Qin., H, Jeng., Y, Rakue., & T, Mizota. (2005). A deficient public health system as a contributing cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in mainland China, The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 36(1), 213–216.

Ministry of Health of People’s Republic of China. (n.d.). Development Layout of National Health Information 2003–2010. Retrieved from http://www.moh.gov.cn/uploadfile/200406/2004629144259379.doc.

Ministry of Health of People’s Republic of China. (2005). The statistic Summary of Health Care in China. Retrieved from http://www.moh.gov.cn/public/open.aspx?nid=9787&seq=0.

Q, Lu. (2000). China’s Leap into the Information Age: Innovation and Organization in the Computer Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

R, C, Alvarez., & J, Zelmer. (1998). Standardization in health informatics in Canada, International Journal of Medical Informatics, 48, 13–18.

T, Beale. (2003). Archetypes and the EHR, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 96, 238–244.

T, Beale. (2006). Archetypes constraint-based domain models for future-proof information systems. Retrieved from http://www.deepthought.com.au/it/archetypes/archetypes.pdf.

T, Beale. (2002). Unified EHR standards—is convergence possible. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 87, 78–97.

W, D, Bidgood., Jr., S, C, Horii., F, W, Prior., & D, E, Van Syckle. (1997). Understanding and using DICOM, the data interchange standard for biomedical imaging. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4(3), 199–212.

X, J, Wang., J, Hu., & K, Wang. (2004). Setting-up and preliminary performance of the interactive teleradiological conference system based on virtual private network, Chinese Medical Journal, 117(11), 1735–1738.

Y, Tao., & J, Miao. (2003). Workstation scheme and implementation for a medical imaging information system, Chinese Medical Journal, 116(5), 654–657.

Y, Y, Xu., Y, Zhang., & F, Pan. (2001). China adjusted diagnostic related groups and case mix index based on health record, Chinese Journal of Hospital Administration, 17 (1), 34–36 (Chinese).

Z, Gong., S, J, Duckett., D, G, Legge., & L, Pei. (2004). Describing Chinese hospital activity with diagnosis related groups (DRGs): a case study in Chengdu, Health Policy, 69(1), 93–100.

Toni Lee (Tong Li) (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments From Yajing

The article covers topic with details and some examples, which make the whole article easy to understand. The part for Health Informatics in China is well constructed and with proper arrangement. My personal suggestion is to present content by using subtitles, such as "Healthcare System in 1980's", that make the readers would have general idea on what this paragraph is about.This part also has enough external links to link with other wiki pages. The author could also consider to make the article more attractive and interesting by using fond. Make good contribution to the development of Wiki page.The references for the article are used appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yajing Yang (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The new graphic

Wuser6 I like the addition but I am only slightly concerned about the actual patient's name and information put on there. I would be able to take it and blur out important information but I am just slightly concerned for their sake. --DemetriusGiannopoulos (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Global partnerships, regional working groups, allied societies

Are represented therein, IMIA as in other countries, such as Colombia and Peru

In the above box is an entire section I have cut from this article. The reason is that external links do not belong in the "See also" section, they belong in the "External links" section and should be kept to a minimum per WP:ELPOINTS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. So, this content should be reviewed and whether to include each link should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Difference between Health Informatics and Health Information Technology?

Health information technology and Health Informatics both have Wikipedia articles which cover very similar material, seems like they should be joined, or the distinction between the terms needs to be disucssed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maboitiz (talk • contribs) 22:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Health informatics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Outdated SCImago ranking

I have removed this outdated ranking, it is largely redundant with our own stand-alone list of notable journals anyway. To be clear, I am not saying this metric is not credible (it probably is to some extent). But just copypasting an external ranking without clear sourcing (which year? which exact criteria?) and keeping it unmaintained for years is not helpful for readers. It is also giving undue weight for 1 particular index, when several other similar metrics exist for similar purposes. Such additions of "rankings" are often done in good faith, but for interested readers it would be better to get the actual up-to-date information for such highly variable data directly from the original sources. GermanJoe (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

JMIR mention

I have removed this addition - mentioning only one journal or a group of journals is undue weight, especially compared to other aspects in the paragraph and when no independent reliable source is provided to show the relevance of these statistics. All claims of importance and pioneership need an independent expert source and should be presented in due weight with other details. GermanJoe (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Impact Factors of scholarly journals publishing digital health (ehealth, mhealth) work
Thank you, GermanJoe, for starting this discussion. I note that the previous text highlights a selective list of journals and is only of historical interest. The disputed paragraph about JMIR is, to the best of my knowledge, all true and verifiable, even if an inline citation has not yet been given. The text does refer to another Wikipedia article, that contains the image I've repeated here and that is also in this articles. That does give sourcing. SciImago confirms the historical claim ("first open access health informatics journal").
The Journal Citation Reports are behind a paywall. I have university access, but am uncertain how to do the citation. I guess: "InCites Journal Citation Reports 2018: Category Medical Informatics. Clarivate Analytics"? The new 2018 data goes:
  1. Journal of Medical Internet Research 4.945 (JMIR journal)
  2. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 4.301 (JMIR journal)
  3. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 4.292
  4. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 4.217
  5. Artifical Intelligence in Medicine 3.574
  6. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 3.424
  7. JMIR Serious Games 3.351 (JMIR journal)
  8. JMIR Medical Informatics 3.188 (JMIR journal)
That supports the claim of "a total of 4 journals in the top 8 (Q1) health informatics journal". It is perhaps selective to pull out that fact (why look at the top 8?), but I think we're safe saying JMIR is top in the Journal Citation Reports, or that JMIR and another JMIR journal are one and two. I think noting the top ranked journal in the field is in keeping with due weight requirements. So I suggest re-adding the text with citations here given, or something similar.
COI statement... As I said, I've published in JMIR. I've got a JMIR paper in press and just had one in JMIR Serious Games. I've previously been in JMIR, JMIR mHealth uHealth and JMIR Mental Health. I used to be a Section Editor for JMIR a while back. I've also published in many other health informatics journals, mostly BMC Med Inform Dec Mak (#15 in JCR), but also Learning Health Systems, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Digital Health, Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, etc. I had a rejection last year from Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. I've currently got papers under review at JMIR Serious Games and Lancet Digital Health. I've been a special issue editor for Frontiers. I've had meetings about journal strategy recently with Digital Health, with BMJ Health & Care Informatics, and with Frontiers (all for things too new to have impact factors yet). Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't really doubt the factual accuracy of the data. But the issue at hand is due weight and more importantly the lack of independent sources to analyze these statistics. ... but I think we're safe saying JMIR is top in the Journal Citation Reports is not the correct approach. Wikipedia editors should not analyze existing statistics, indexes and other external data, but depend on a published source to do the analyzing - even for relatively uncontroversial assessments a secondary source should be used. On a more practical note, such inclusions of rankings and external statistics need constant maintenance and can become outdated or inaccurate fairly quickly - I have however added a "See also" hatnote link for readers interested in this aspect. GermanJoe (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The Journal Citation Reports are a published source in this context. They are widely used. I think your argument, as I understand it, that they constitute a primary source here is questionable. JCR is certainly independent of individual journals. JCR is used far more often than the current citation used in the paragraph to pick out a small set of older journals.
JCR is published once a year and the 2018 release only just came out. To describe that as under threat of becoming outdated "fairly quickly" feels like a little bit of an exaggeration. The text or citation can refer to the 2018 release to protect against that. Bondegezou (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I note Infobox journal includes an impact factor field. If JCR impact factor is OK there, I don't see why it should not be OK in the text. If it's not OK there, a discussion is needed around that Infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
As you mentioned above: It is perhaps selective to pull out that fact - it is indeed "selective" and puts undue weight on the implied importance of 1 publisher (unless such an assessment about the entire group of journals is covered in a secondary source). It seems we are arguing a bit in circles though and should agree to disagree for now. Let's wait for feedback from other uninvolved editors. Of course you could also propose a formal Template:Request edit to get more input. Either way, thank you for the constructive and collegial discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the question of impact factors is a red herring mostly. The question is WP:DUE. Personally, I'd mentioned the most important journals from a historical perspective, and possible the 3-5 top journals according to a very specific ranking (e.g. top 3 journals in the category 'Health informatics', if that category exists). For the rest, I'd let the List of medical and health informatics journals do the talking. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I can go with giving the top 3 journals in the JCR 'medical informatics' category, which are JMIR, JMIR mHealth uHealth, and JAMIA. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

The article is overall very good. The strengths are that it gives a lot of detail into some of the technical components of health informatics. The article can be improved by adding more images and graphs. Ashcha1234 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lcmadz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mavin2516.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Professional societies

I have moved the paragraph on professional societies in the UK from History to Current policies and initiatives. S C Cheese (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Wikipedia supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kulikowski CA, Shortliffe EH, Currie LM, Elkin PL, Hunter LE, Johnson TR, Kalet IJ, Lenert LA, Musen MA, Ozbolt JG, Smith JW, Tarczy-Hornoch PZ, Williamson JJ. AMIA Board white paper: definition of biomedical informatics and specification of core competencies for graduate education in the discipline. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 2012. [PubMed: 22683918]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Health_informatics/Archive_1&oldid=1253529758"