Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 353))

  • 4079 Accesses

Abstract

For several years, telemedicine practitioners have struggled to establish their field as an autonomous scientific discipline, which is often reflected in diverging definitions of what telemedicine is. However, the telemedicine community depends on and draws heavily on established scientific areas such as medicine, economics, informatics and social science, which each have their own criteria for good scientific work. In addition, new technological innovations appear to pave the way for new applications within the field, thus challenging perceptions of what the field encompasses. The aim of this paper is to contribute to this debate by conceptualizing the notion of telemedicine as being something people do rather than numerous definitions of what the field is.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 369.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gammon, D., Johannessen, L.K., Sørensen, T., Whitten, P.: An overview and analysis of theories employed in telemedicine studies: A field in search of an identity. Methods of Information in Medicine 47(3), 260–269 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Craig, J., Pattersen, V.: Introduction to the practice of telemedicine. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 11, 3–9 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lehoux, P., Sicotte, C., Denis, J.-L., Berg, M., Lacroix, A.: The theory of use behind telemedicine: how compatible with physicians’ clinical routines? Social Science & Medicine 54, 889–904 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19(4), 387–420 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Law, J., Singleton, V.: Object Lessons. Organization 12(3), 331–355 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. de Laet, M., Mol, A.: The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology. Social Studies of Science 30(2), 225–263 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bechky, B.: Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology 109(3), 720–752 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Coiera, E.: Four rules for the reinvention of health care. British Medical Journal 328, 1197–1199 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Obstfelder, A., Engeseth, K.H., Wynn, R.: Characteristics of successfully implemented telemedical applications. Implementation Science 2(25), 1–11 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Stanberry, B.: Telemedicine: Barriers and opportunities in the 21st century. Journal of Internal Medicine 247, 615–628 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wyatt, J.C., Liu, J.L.Y.: Basic concepts in medical informatics. The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56, 808–812 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sood, S., Mbarika, V., Jugoo, S., Dookhy, R., Doarn, C.R., Prakash, N., Merrell, R.C.: What Is Telemedicine? A Collection of 104 Peer-Reviewed Perspectives and Theoretical Underpinnings. Telemedicine and e-Health 13(5), 573–590 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barrett, M., Oborn, E., Orlikowski, W., Yates, J.: Boundary relations: technological objects and the restructuring of workplace boundaries. Working paper series 16/2007. Judge Business School, Cambridge (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Law, J.: After method: mess in social science research. Routledge, London (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nicolini, D.: The work to make telemedicine work: A social and articulative view. Social Science & Medicine 62, 2754–2767 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Walsham, G.: Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 74–81 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Klein, H.K., Myers, M.D.: A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 67–94 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. SHD: Statlig tiltaksplan 2001-2003 Elektronisk samhandling i helse- og sosialsektoren. “Si @!” (Governmental action programme 2001-2003. Electronic interaction in the health and social sector) “say @” (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunnar Ellingsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ellingsen, G. (2015). On the Boundaries of Telemedicine. In: Rocha, A., Correia, A., Costanzo, S., Reis, L. (eds) New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 353. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16486-1_110

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16486-1_110

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16485-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16486-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics