Health 2.0

Health 2.0 is a term representing the possiblities between health care, eHealth and Web 2.0, and has come into use after a recent spate of articles in newspapers, and by Physicians and Medical Librarians. A possible explanation for the reason that Health has generated its own "2.0" term are its applications across health care in general, and in particular it limitless potential in public health promotion.

Level of use of Web 2.0 in Health Care
Little empirical evidence exists to understand how much Web 2.0 is being used in general. Studies suggest the use is extensive, for instance it is estimated that nearly one-third of the 100m Americans who have looked for health information online say that they or people they know have been significantly helped by what they found. This however looks at the broader use of the internet for health management, but other research has suggested that a segment of 245,000 physicians in the U.S are using Web 2.0 for their practice, indicating that use is beyond the stage of the early adopter with regard to physicians and Web 2.0.

Types of Web 2.0 use in Health Care
Web 2.0 is commonly associated with technologies such as weblogs (blogs), social bookmarking, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds (and other forms of many-to-many publishing), social software, and web application programming interfaces (APIs) (see main article Web 2.0). As such the commonly identified uses of Web 2.0 in health can be

Criticism of the use of Web 2.0 in health
Several critcism have been raised in the use of Web 2.0 in health. Firstly, the limitations for Medical Doctors (MDs) to use Google as a diagnostic tool, which may be more effective only for conditions with unique symptoms and signs that can easily be used as search term. Secondly, longheld concerns exist about the effects of patients obtaining information online, such as the idea that petients may delay seeking medical advice. Finally concerns exist about the quality of user generated content leading to mis-information, though empirical research has demonstrated that in certain support groups on 6% of information is factually wrong and that only 3% reported that online advice had caused serious harm.