Society for Participatory Medicine
Journal of Participatory Medicine
Opinion
Commentary, Vol. 2, 2010
What “Participatory” Means to Me
Reflecting on my own experiences, I wonder if my modus operandi would be considered truly participatory.
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 2, 2010
The Term “Patient” May Describe Me … But It Does Not Define Me
Although some individuals prefer to describe themselves as e-patients, em-patients, consumers, clients, etc., the historic term “patient” is, in fact, a sufficient and effective descriptor of “a person seeking or needing the services of a health care professional.”
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 2, 2010
Evidence that Engagement Does Make a Difference
To date, there has been little direct evidence to support the claim that our engagement affects health outcomes. So when a study comes along that specifically examines how people engage in a high-stakes, effective intervention and its impact on their health, it’s worth a close look.
Read MoreEditorials, Vol. 2, 2010
A Thank You to Departing Co-Editor Gruman
Citation: Smith CM. A thank you to departing co-editor Gruman. J Participat Med. 2010 Dec 13; 2:e16. Published: December 13, 2010. Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist. The JoPM editorial team has been very fortunate to have Jessie Gruman serve as one of the founding Co-Editors. Jessie, with great wit [...]
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 2, 2010
Who’s a Peer? Improving Peer Review by Including Additional Sources of Expertise
The credibility, authority, and relevance of prestigious journals are being questioned in the light of an apparent increase in publications marred by technical flaws or misconduct, despite having passed peer review. To strengthen the review process, JoPM proposes to allow health care users and other lay experts to participate in the shaping of new knowledge by providing feedback on the quality of the evidence.
Read MoreCommentary, Featured Podcast, Podcasts, Vol. 2, 2010
Participatory Evidence: Opportunities and Threats
In our new world of instant information exchange and empowered patients, how are clinicians and empowered patients challenging traditional ways to collect, evaluate, and publish evidence?
Read MoreCommentary, Featured Podcast, Podcasts, Vol. 2, 2010
Peer Review and Reputation Systems: A Discussion
Can we trust traditional peer review? If it’s broken, how might we fix it?
Read MoreEditorials, Vol. 1, 2009
Why Participatory Medicine?
The job of the Journal of Participatory Medicine is to answer the question of “why participatory medicine?” It is our hypothesis that PM is good: it will lead to healthier, more empowered individuals, lower health care costs (through reduced need for health care), and a more productive, happier society overall.
Read MoreEditorials, Vol. 1, 2009
Why the Journal of Participatory Medicine?
Achieving the benefit of safe and effective health care has never demanded so much from so many. Each of us has a role, and that role is changing with advances in technology and the delivery of care. No player—patient, caregiver, clinician, administrator, or payer—is expendable in the effort to improve the prevention, treatment, and management of disease. This journal will build the field of participatory medicine by serving as a single source of articles and multimedia content that demonstrate and illustrate what it is and what difference it makes in health outcomes. We will dedicate our efforts in this journal to realizing the change this entails using the tools of science, critical review, consultation, experience, and consensus.
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 1, 2009
Why Health Care Professionals Should Practice Participatory Medicine: Perspective of a Long-Time Medical Editor
All medical and health care is intensely personal: one patient, one professional, one moment, one decision. The patient is best served by fully participating. With American health care reform imminent, participation for self-preservation becomes even more important.
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 1, 2009
Participatory Health Care: Perspective from a Nurse Leader
Most nurses inherently value the concept of partnership, of complementary expertise, of collaboration. This stems from our service orientation and our holistic view of situations and solutions.
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 1, 2009
Why Purchasers Should Care about Participatory Medicine
Purchasers of health care—employers, union trusts, and government agencies—have experienced inexorable cost increases and stagnating quality results despite many efforts at payment and delivery system reform.
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 1, 2009
What It Will Take to Embrace Participatory Medicine: One Patient’s View
I have the honor of writing this introductory piece for the Journal of Participatory Medicine (JoPM) from the viewpoint of a patient. To do this I must drop my academic titles and replace them with my qualification for the task at hand.
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 1, 2009
Bio-Socio-Technical Underpinnings of Participatory Medicine
Participatory medicine (PM) is facilitated by technology, but a purely technical analysis of their interaction provides only a partial picture. Drawing on a rich body of social science research, this article examines how both socio-cultural and biological perspectives lend additional context and a deeper understanding of the role of technology in PM.
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 1, 2009
What Can Technology Reviews Contribute to Participatory Medicine?
Abstract Summary: Technology can be a great aid to participatory medicine when it works well, but when it fails, it results in great frustration and can adversely affect outcomes. So, how do patients and professionals know which tech tools to try and which ones to leave on the shelf? At CNET, we spend a lot [...]
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 1, 2009
Reviewing Health Tools: A Community Matter
High-quality product reviews will be an important part of this new journal, with its focus on supporting and encouraging people to participate in their own health care. But how should we go about evaluating various interactive applications and devices that bill themselves as “health tools”? Health design advocate Amy Tenderich of DiabetesMine.com explores the definition of a “health tool,” and lays out parameters for a new kind of participatory product review process.
Read MoreCommentary, Opinion, Vol. 1, 2009
In Search Of an Optimal Peer Review System
Abstract Summary: After 30 years of practicing peer review and 15 years of studying it experimentally, I’m unconvinced of its value. Its downside is much more obvious to me than its upside, and the evidence we have on peer review tends to support that jaundiced view. Yet peer review remains sacred, worshiped by scientists and [...]
Read MoreCommentary, Vol. 1, 2009
Reputation Systems: A New Vision for Publishing and Peer Review
Peer review as we know it today is broken. A better way may be to create an online reputation system to rate the quality of an author, editor, or reviewer’s online contributions on the Internet, and apply such a system to pre- and open post-publication peer review…
Read More
Hacking Health: Designing for and Understanding My Health
Participatory Medicine: Opportunities and Threats
RSS Feed
