Towards a Unified Understanding of eHealth and Related Terms
Proposal of a Consolidated Terminological Basis
Lena Otto
1
, Lorenz Harst
2
, Hannes Schlieter
1
, Bastian Wollschlaeger
3
,
Peggy Richter
1
and Patrick Timpel
4
1
Chair of Wirtschaftsinformatik, esp. Systems Development, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
2
Research Association Public Health Saxony, Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine
Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
3
Chair of Technical Information Management Systems, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
4
Prevention and Care of Diabetes, Department of Medicine III, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus,
Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Keywords: eHealth, Telemedicine, Telehealth, mHealth, Terminological Ontology.
Abstract: The impact of digitization on healthcare gives rise to interdisciplinary concepts such as eHealth. However,
achieving improvements in research and innovation requires a valid and unified understanding of the
common terminology. Yet, a heterogeneous usage of different terms regarding eHealth can be observed.
This leads to a deficient communication between researchers and practitioners, impeding the diffusion, i. e.
extensive practical implementation of innovative health concepts. To address this problem, our aim is to
consolidate and harmonize eHealth-related terminology. To this end, a literature analysis was conducted to
identify established definitions and to formulate a terminological ontology for the related concepts. The
current results show a consistent definition of the terms digitization, ICT, and telematics. In contrast,
telemedicine, telehealth, eHealth, and mHealth were identified as conflictingly defined terms. Consequently,
the proposed ontology serves as a first guidance to support an adequate use of the included terms. Further
systematic research of terms is needed to verify the current concept of the ontology. Additionally,
specifying the connection between the ontology and the elements of healthcare systems is required for a
deeper understanding of the influence of digitization in healthcare.
1 INTRODUCTION
Telemedicine and eHealth are said to change the
way healthcare is delivered. These concepts are seen
as potential solutions to overcome communication
breakdowns (loss of information), avoid multiple
assessments, and improve quality of care as well as
patient satisfaction (Kruse et al., 2013).
Approximately 20 % of physicians in Canada are
currently using eHealth tools on a daily basis in
routine care (Razmak and Bélanger, 2017). In 2013,
53 % of all Americans had looked up plausible
medical conditions online before consulting their
physicians (Fox and Duggan, 2013). Looking at the
91 % of all Americans who own a smartphone, up to
13 % of them use health apps. Smartphone owners
use their phones in 31 % of the cases to obtain health
information, most commonly using fitness and diet
apps of any shape (Fox and Duggan, 2013). In
general, internet health information seeking is able
to improve the patient-physician relationship (Tan
and Goonawardene, 2017).
In 2002, five years before the launch of the first
iPhone, Eng delivered a broad definition of the term
eHealth. It was defined as „the use of emerging
information and communication technology,
especially the Internet, to improve or enable health
and health care” (Eng, 2002). It was lately adopted
to also accommodate to the usage of mobile
technologies to deliver care, which then is
sometimes called mHealth (Nacinovich, 2011).
Today however, there is growing disparity among
scholars as to what should be subsumed under the
term eHealth and its related terms. Its meaning
might vary between research institutions, although a
standardized definition was provided by the WHO in
2006 (Lewis, 2015). The same is true for the term
telemedicine. In 2014, a group of 100 specialists,
Otto, L., Harst, L., Schlieter, H., Wollschlaeger, B., Richter, P. and Timpel, P.
Towards a Unified Understanding of eHealth and Related Terms – Proposal of a Consolidated Terminological Basis.
DOI: 10.5220/0006651005330539
In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies (BIOSTEC 2018) - Volume 5: HEALTHINF, pages 533-539
ISBN: 978-989-758-281-3
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
533
partaking in the Federal Telemedicine Work Group
announced by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, came up with seven unique, yet all
slightly diverging definitions of telemedicine (Doarn
et al., 2014). eHealth and mHealth, however, are
sometimes also used instead of or synonymously to
the terms telemedicine or telehealth. Consequently,
there is a strong need for both empirical and practical
definitions as a basis for further research of any kind.
Despite this uncertainty regarding the definition
of eHealth, there seems to be a remarkable scientific
consensus about what to expect from this
technology. Eng (2002) formulates the somewhat
vague hope that eHealth might improve healthcare,
and, thereby, ultimately health itself. Other authors
have gone far beyond that. In an attempt to adapt the
ten “E’s” concerned with eCommerce to the domain
of eHealth-technologies, Eysenbach assumes that
eHealth might enhance quality of care, while also
creating a previously unknown knowledge basis for
each patient. This might in turn empower patients to
make more informed decisions about their health or
treatment. According to Eysenbach, this will
ultimately encourage an all new relationship
between patient and caregiver (Eysenbach, 2001).
The evident gap in scientific research described
above is intended to be closed by targeting the
disparity in definitions and therefore the inconsistent
application of the terms telemedicine, telehealth,
eHealth, and mHealth.
The aim of this paper is to develop a
consolidated view (1) to define the individual terms
and (2) to synthesize their interrelations and
delimitations. A terminological ontology is specified
in this paper. It serves as an instrument for eHealth-
researchers to monitor adequate applications of
related terms.
For facilitating a common understanding,
ontologies are a widely-used tool in a great variety
of domains as they allow a specification of domain
concepts and the relationships among them in a
formalized manner. Therefore, they offer the
possibility to describe domain knowledge and the
semantics of terms. In technical applications, e. g. in
the field of computer science, health informatics or
biomedicine, knowledge modelling ontologies are
used to create knowledge bases, which in turn serve
as the foundation of decision-support systems
(Heijst, 1997), e. g. for medical emergency coordi-
nation (Sujanto et al., 2008). However, other types
of ontologies are used to specify taxonomies across
different domains (terminological ontologies, Heijst,
1997) in order to facilitate semantic interoperability,
such as Open Biomedical Ontologies, SNOMED
Clinical Terms (Ganzha et al., 2016) or the Gene
Ontology (The Gene Ontology Consortium, 2000).
In contrast to this data-centric application of
ontologies, the focus of this paper lies on discussing
the general relations of concepts in the eHealth and
telemedicine domain.
2 METHODS
The inclusion of terms was conducted starting from
the concept of eHealth. A literature study in the field
of healthcare and connected fields (e. g. health
informatics or health communication) was carried
out to identify the relevant definitions, starting with
those concerned with eHealth. In a next step, related
concepts such as telemedicine, mHealth, telehealth
as well as ICT, telematics, and digitization were
included. These interrelated terms were introduced
and explained to achieve a broad understanding of
the surrounding domain.
Based on an overview of established definitions,
a coherent definition of and the relations between
the terms are derived. The resulting interrelations
and delimitations are illustrated in an ontology.
Identified conflicting definitions and relations
between terms are discussed. Afterwards, a
terminology concerning eHealth and healthcare
related terms is proposed. The paper ends with a
summary and an outlook on further research.
3 DEFINITION OF RELEVANT
TERMS
The literature analysis starting from the term eHealth
yielded several terms of the healthcare domain. As
eHealth is largely based on technology, the research
presented here began with exploring the technology-
related terminology. The identified terms and
concepts as well as their dependencies are depicted
as a terminological ontology in Figure 1. The terms
and concepts are shown as nodes in the diagram.
The different edges connecting the nodes represent
the relationships between the concepts. Their
semantics, based on the UML class diagram
notation, are added as labels. References containing
the definitions of concepts and justifications for the
relations were added to each element in the diagram.
It was observed that the analysed terms and their
relationships are defined to different degrees of
consistency in the research community. To indicate
this, debatable relations are depicted in italic style.
HEALTHINF 2018 - 11th International Conference on Health Informatics
534
In the following section, definitions and
explanations for the different concepts represented
in the proposed ontology are provided. Consistent
definitions for the terms digitization, information
and communication technology as well as
telematics were identified.
The increasing level of digitization affects every
area of society. The use of digital instead of
analogue signals, besides changing the way of
people’s work, also broadens the abilities of
technological systems (Hagen, 2017). To enable
digitization and its diffusion in all areas of life, the
use of information and communication technology
(ICT) is required (Hagen, 2017).
Information and communication technology
“refers to both different types of communications
networks and the technologies used in them. [...][It]
fulfil[s] or enable[s] the function of information
processing and communication by electronic means”
(OECD, 2014).
Strongly related with ICT and also used in the
healthcare sector is the term telematics. Telematics
combines the theories of telecommunication with
informatics (Alpay and Heathfield, 1997). This
concept plays an important role for healthcare as it
describes “the transmission of information across
distances” (Alpay and Heathfield, 1997). For this
reason, it also enables changes in the way care is
delivered (Dasgupta and Deb, 2008).
Concepts like eHealth, mHealth, telehealth,
and telemedicine are among these new ways of care
delivery. All of them introduce technical
components into the domain of medicine, health and
wellbeing. Apart from this common denominator,
controversial definitions of the terms were found.
eHealth, for example, “refers to tools and
services using information and communication
technologies that can improve prevention, diagnosis,
treatment, monitoring and management” (EC, 2015).
In addition, it also supports care provision using
different new services and systems, such as
electronic health records or telemedicine services
(EC, 2015). eHealth is therefore mostly related to
healthcare by involving professional service
providers as well as focusing on patients and their
(everyday) behaviour and lifestyle.
Telemedicine, in contrast, is exclusively
focusing on aspects of healthcare: The European
Commission (2015) and Sood et al. (2007), who
reviewed 104 different definitions of telemedicine,
conclude that telemedicine is part of eHealth. The
use of ICT over distances to deliver “healthcare
services and medical education” (Sood et al., 2007)
is characteristic. The involvement of professional
service providers is therefore obligatory for
telemedicine services (WHO, 1997). Among the 104
studies reviewed by Sood et al., there are important
differences in the understanding of telemedicine,
pointing out the existing heterogeneity of the
terminology: Telemedicine may “range from simple
e-mail-based store-and-forward technologies to
complex remote surgical technologies that employ
robotics” (Sood et al., 2007). Following the
European Commission (2015), this understanding
describes the term eHealth instead of telemedicine.
Unlike telemedicine, mHealth describes “the use
of mobile communications for health information
and services” (Nacinovich, 2011), which is possible
without the direct involvement of health service
providers. Especially the transmission of health
information using mobile communications can be
carried out exclusively by the patients themselves
(PWC, 2013). In general, it has to be pointed out that
mHealth is not a well-defined concept. Nacinovich
(2011) is one of few authors who proposed a
definition, which, however, is still quite broad.
Another concept related to the considered terms
is telehealth. While Sood et al. (2007) define it as a
generic term for telemedicine, the World Health
Organization (2010) describes both terms as being
equivalent. Nevertheless, both terms can also be
distinguished based on the involved healthcare
providers: Telemedicine can be seen as a service
exclusively delivered by physicians (WHO, 1997),
while telehealth includes the delivery of services by
all existing healthcare providers (WHO, 2010). Yet,
it is stated in the WHO group consultation on tele-
medicine from 1997, that “health telematics” as the
broader term is not restricted to any involvement of
health professionals, as it also includes the generic
term “health-related activities” (WHO, 1997).
Considering the uncertainty about how to
adequately define and delimitate the terms
telemedicine and telehealth, a decision about their
hierarchical relationship is difficult but nevertheless
required. To this end, the distinction between health
and wellness may serve as an additional indicator to
resolve this uncertainty.
While health and wellness are often used
interchangeably, different meanings are established
ever since the WHO first defined health as “a state
of complete physical, mental and social well-being
and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”
(WHO, 1948). It is the word “complete” that has led
to criticism of the WHO definition, for it is said to
make it overly inclusive (Stoewen, 2015).
Nevertheless, as Stoewen points out, this broad
scope acknowledges the fact that health does not
Towards a Unified Understanding of eHealth and Related Terms – Proposal of a Consolidated Terminological Basis
535
only depend on environmental or socio-economic
factors, but also on the individual’s lifestyle and
therefore on wellness (Stoewen, 2015).
The individual’s responsibility for his or her
wellness is embodied in the definition by the U.S.
National Wellness Institute, which considers
wellness “an active process through which people
become aware of, and make choices toward, a more
successful existence” (National Wellness Institute,
2015). Apart from the individual responsibility
advocated here, it also becomes clear that wellness
can not only be achieved with the aid of a health
practitioner, as it is also reflected in Kirch’s (2008b)
definition of well-being. On the other hand,
healthcare delivery, used synonymously to medical
services, is also defined as prevention and treatment
of diseases through the healthcare system (Kirch,
2008a). The latter embodies health professionals of
any shape.
In conclusion, health according to the WHO’s
early definition is a state of holistic well-being,
while wellness is the individual’s way to preserve
and enhance that state (Stoewen, 2015).
For their systematic review on health and
wellness technologies used in underserved areas,
Montague and Perchonok (2012) rely on the same
holistic definition of health and the understanding of
wellness technologies as having “little or no
interaction with the health care system” (Montague
and Perchonok, 2012). Instead, they take
technologies primarily used by the consumer into
account, thereby paying their respect to the
individual’s responsibility embodied in the term
wellness.
As previously mentioned, contradicting defini-
tions exist for some of the investigated terms.
Especially the scope of eHealth, telemedicine, and
telehealth can be conceived differently. Due to the
diffuse separation between the terms themselves, a
strong overlap can be recognised. Accordingly, the
terms telehealth and telemedicine can be further
differentiated by applying them to the concepts of
health and well-being/ wellness. While eHealth and
telehealth use a holistic understanding, telemedicine
focuses on medical and diagnostic elements
requiring the involvement of physicians.
A conclusive assessment of the various
definitions is not part of this paper, but it is one of
the topics that were identified for further research.
4 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
THE CONSIDERED CONCEPTS
In the following section, the aim is to explain and
justify the relationships in the developed ontology
using definitions and logical reasoning. The result is
shown in Figure 1.
For the implementation of digitization, ICT is
needed (Hagen, 2017). Therefore, both terms have a
connection, with digitization being the dependent
term. Another connection regarding ICT is to
telematics. Telematics is enabled by ICT and
therefore depends on it (Alpay and Heathfield,
1997). On the other hand, telematics is an enabling
concept for eHealth. Due to the possibility of
overcoming distances on the basis of ICT, it is a
foundation for eHealth and related concepts (EC,
2015; Sood et al., 2007).
At the same time, eHealth is a generic term for
different related concepts. Even though mHealth is
not defined conclusively as a whole, it is nevertheless
defined as a part of eHealth as it does not necessarily
involve service providers (Nacinovich, 2011), as it is
the case for telehealth and telemedicine.
Figure 1: Terms and relations based on literature analysis.
HEALTHINF 2018 - 11th International Conference on Health Informatics
536
As described with the definitions above,
telemedicine can be seen as a subcategory of
telehealth (Sood et al., 2007) and eHealth (WHO,
2010) at the same time. Resulting from both views,
as they exist simultaneously, telehealth needs to be a
subcategory of eHealth while being a general term
encompassing telemedicine.
Especially the relationships between eHealth and
telemedicine as well as telemedicine and telehealth
are not defined consistently. A logical separation is
possible based on their focus on either health
(telemedicine) or both health and wellness/ well-
being (eHealth, telehealth). However, on the basis of
a diffuse separation between the particular terms, the
delimitation between them is not clear as well. In
order to illustrate this, these relations are depicted in
italic style in Figure 1.
Nevertheless, each term and relationship was
justified by at least one definition. Despite the fact
that an ontology for the main terms is provided, a lot
of different meanings regarding some terms and
their delimitations will remain. Hence, our explicit
description of existing relationships provides a
consistent basis for further work.
5 NEXT STEPS
So far, the ontology provides only a technological
point of view. A next step can be a connection to “real
life”, which mainly includes different care models and
their relevant stakeholders. As digitization affects
every area of life (Hagen, 2017), eHealth along with
related technologies and concepts directly affect
human beings. Within the grey box in Figure 2, a
proposal for the integration of patients and other
stakeholders into the provided ontology is displayed.
Telemedicine as a concept of care cannot be
conceived without the underlying care processes,
e. g. care models. Care models exist as a
combination and interaction of different participants,
such as service providers, who treat patients and
get paid by funding agencies. The components of
care models show a certain variability (WHO, 2016).
Depending on the primary objective of a care model
and its target disease or population, it varies to a
considerable extent (Broese van Groenou and Boer,
2016; Davidson et al., 2006; Wagner et al., 1996).
Consequently, detailed analyses and further
discussions are needed to develop an evidence-based
link of care models with the developed ontology.
As represented in Figure 2, the terms are justified
by definitions. Only funding agencies were not
found to be adequately defined. Because our focus is
on the German health system, a specific definition
regarding funding agencies needs an enhanced
examination, taking into account the framework of
the German health system. Finding an appropriate
definition and further justifying the proposed
relationships with applied care provision (see grey
box, Figure 2) will be addressed in future research.
Taking the current ontology as a foundation, the goal
is to further develop it to a reliable and scientifically
proven ontology for eHealth and related terms,
Figure 2: Proposal on how to connect the health care domain to the terminology.
Towards a Unified Understanding of eHealth and Related Terms – Proposal of a Consolidated Terminological Basis
537
especially with respect to patients. A potential way
to validate the provided ideas is to conduct an expert
workshop as suggested by Gammon et al. (2015).
6 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
Due to the identified heterogeneity and uncertainty
regarding the definitions of eHealth and related terms,
the focus was on the provision of a consolidated view
for interdisciplinary studies. Furthermore, this
consolidated view can help to understand and support
quality assessments and facilitate the diffusion of
innovative care concepts into practice.
To reach this aim, a terminological ontology was
created via a two-step procedure. Firstly, the
underlying technological concepts of eHealth and
related terms were identified using an extensive
literature analysis. Secondly, a proposal was made to
extend the ontology and to include care models, by
conducting a literature analysis. Finally, an outlook
was developed describing next steps to validate and
further develop the provided ontology.
All in all, an overview of eHealth, telemedicine,
telehealth, and mHealth as well as related terms could
be provided. Nevertheless, it was found that for some
terms insufficient definitions (e. g. mHealth) and
unclear delimitations are prevalent in the research
community. Especially the connections between tele-
medicine, telehealth, and eHealth need to be clarified.
Systematic reviews for additional terms in the
proposed ontology-extension (Figure 2) should
follow, in order to establish definitions substantiated
by the research community and infer appropriate
relations. Moreover, it needs to be verified if all
adjacent concepts are already represented in the
ontology proposal, as e. g. the term digitization also
possesses a processual character, which possibly
impacts additional concepts.
The presented work is intended to further enhance
discussion and thereby improve the quality of
telemedicine research and innovation. As a result, this
work is a valuable contribution to eHealth research as
it contains theory- and evidence-based knowledge of
the domain terminology. It reveals the importance of a
common terminology and it therefore provides the
foundation for an interdisciplinary understanding.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work for this paper was funded by the European
Social Fund and the Free State of Saxony (Grant no.
100310385).
REFERENCES
Alpay, L. and Heathfield, H. (1997). A review of
telematics in healthcare: evolution, challenges and
caveats. Health Informatics J., 3(2), pp. 81-92.
Broese van Groenou, M. I. and Boer, A. D (2016).
Providing informal care in a changing society. Eur. J.
Ageing, 13(3), pp. 271-279.
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG) (2017).
Leistungserbringer. Available at: https://www.bundes
gesundheitsministerium.de/service/begriffe-von-a-z/l/
leistungserbringer.html#c1336. (accessed: 26 Septem-
ber 2017).
Dasgupta, A. and Deb, S. (2008). Telemedicine: A new
Horizon in Public Health in India. Indian J.
Community Med., 33(1), pp. 1-8.
Davidson, P., Halcomb, E., Hickman, L., Phillips, J. and
Graham, B. (2006). Beyond the rhetoric: what do we
mean by a ‘model of care’?. Aust. J. Adv. Nurs., 23(3),
pp. 47-55.
Djalali, S. and Roseman, T. (2015). Neue Versorgungs-
modelle für chronisch Kranke: Hintergründe und
Schlüsselelemente. Neuchatel: Schweizerisches
Gesundheitsobservatorium.
Doarn, C.R., Pruitt, S., Jacobs, J., Harris, Y., Bott, D.M.,
Riley, W., Lamer, C. and Oliver, A.L. (2014). Federal
Efforts to Define and Advance Telehealth A Work
in Progress. Telemed. J. E-Health, 20(5), pp. 409-418.
Eng, J. (2002). eHealth Research and Evaluation:
Challenges and Opportunities. J. Health Commun., 7
(4), pp. 267-272.
European Commission (EC) (2015) EHEALTH. Available
at: https://ec.europa.eu/health/ehealth/policy_en
(accessed: 26 September 2017).
Eysenbach, G. (2001). What is e-health? J Med Internet
Res, 3(2), e20.
Fox, S. and Duggan, M. (2013). Health Online 2013.
Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Gammon, D., Berntsen, G. K., Koricho, A. T., Sygna, K.,
Ruland, C. (2015). The Chronic Care Model and
Technological Research and Innovation: A Scoping
Review at the Crossroads. J Med Internet Res, 17(2),
e25.
Ganzha, M., Paprzycki, M., Pawlowski, W., Szmeja, P.
and Wasielewska, K. (2016). Semantic Technologies
for the IoT - An Inter-IoT Perspective. Proc. 1st Int.
Workshop Interoperability Integr. Interconnect. IoT
Syst. - IEEE Press, pp. 271-276.
Hagen, L.M., (2017). Digitale Revolution. In Oberreuther,
H. (ed.) Staatslexikon. RechtWirtschaftGesellschaft.
Freiburg i. Br.: Herder pp.1627-1635.
Heijst, G. van, Schreiber, A. and Wielinga, B. (1997).
Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. Int. J.
of Hum.-Comput. Stud., 45, pp. 183292.
Kirch, W. (ed.) (2008a). Encyclopedia of Public Health.
Volume 1 (A-H). New York: Springer.
Kirch, W. (ed.) (2008b). Encyclopedia of Public Health.
Volume 2 (I-Z). New York: Springer.
Kruse, C.S., Krowski, N., Rodriguez, B., Tran, L., Vela, J.
and Brooks, M. (2017). Telehealth and patient
HEALTHINF 2018 - 11th International Conference on Health Informatics
538
satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative
analysis. BMJ Open, 7, pp. 1-13.
Lewis, L.M. (2015). The Promise and Ambiguity of
eHealth Research. Nurs. Res., 64(3), pp. 157-158.
Montague, E. and Perchonok, J. (2012). Health and
Wellness Technology Use by Historically
Underserved Health Consumers: Systematic Review.
J. Med. Internet Res., 14(3), e78.
Nacinovich, M. (2011). Defining mHealth. J. Commun.
Healthc., 4(1), pp. 1-3.
National Wellness Institute (2015) About Wellness.
Available at: http://www.nationalwellness.org/?page
=AboutWellness. (accessed: 26 September 2017).
OECD (2014). Information and communication
technology (ICT). Availabe at: https://data.oecd.org/
ict/communication-spending.htm (accessed: 20
September 2017).
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) (2013). Emerging
mHealth: Paths for growth. San Diego: PWC.
Razmak, J. and Bélanger, C.H. (2017). Comparing
Canadian physicians and patients on their use of e-
health tools. Technol. Soc., 51(1), pp. 102-112.
Sood, S., Mbarika, V., Jugoo, S., Dookhy, R., Doarn,
C.R., Prakash, N. and Merrell, R.C. (2007). What is
Telemedicine? A Collection of 104 Peer-Reviewed
Perspectives and Theoretical Underpinnings. Telemed.
E-Health, 13(5), pp. 573-590.
Stoewen, D.L. (2015). Health and wellness. Can. Vet. J.,
56(9), pp. 983-984.
Sujanto, F., Burstein, F., Ceglowski, A. and Churilov, L.
(2008). Application of Domain Ontology for Decision
Support in Medical Emergency Coordination, AMCIS
Proc., pp. 3364-3374.
Tan, S.S.L. and Goonawardene, N. (2017). Internet Health
Information Seeking and the Patient-Physician
Relationship: A Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet
Res., 19(1), e9.
The Gene Ontology Consortium, (2000). Gene ontology:
tool for the unification of biology. Nat. Genet., 25(1),
pp. 25-29.
Wagner, E.H., Austin, B.T. and Korff, M. von (1996).
Organizing care for patients with chronic illness.
Milbank Q., 74(4), pp. 511-544.
World Health Organization (WHO) (1948). Constitution
of the World Health Organization. New York: WHO.
World Health Organization (WHO) (1997). A Health
Telematics Policy in support of WHO’s Health-for-
All-Strategy for Global Health Development. New
York: WHO.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2010). Telemedicine
Opportunities and developments in Member States.
Global Observatory for eHealth series Volume 2.
New York: WHO.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2016). Integrated
care models: an overview. Working document.
Copenhagen: WHO.
Towards a Unified Understanding of eHealth and Related Terms – Proposal of a Consolidated Terminological Basis
539