Development of medical informatics in China over the past 30 years from a conference perspective and a Sino-American comparison

8Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background. As the world's second-largest economy, China has launched health reforms for the second time and invested significant funding in medical informatics (MI) since 2010; however, few studies have been conducted on the outcomes of this ambitious cause. Objective. This study analyzed the features of major MI meetings held in China and compared them with similar MI conferences in the United States, aiming at informing researchers on the outcomes of MI in China and the US from the professional conference perspective and encouraging greater international cooperation for the advancement of the field of medical informatics in China and, ultimately, the promotion of China's health reform. Methods. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of four MI meetings in China (i.e., CMIAAS, CHINC, CHITEC, and CPMI) and two in the US (i.e., AMIA and HIMSS) were conducted. Furthermore, the size, constituent parts and regional allocation of participants, topics, and fields of research for each meeting were determined and compared. Results. From 1985 to 2016, approximately 45,000 individuals attended the CMIAAS and CPMI (academic), CHINC and CHITEC (industry), resulting in 5,085 documented articles. In contrast, in 2015, 38,000 and 3,700 individuals, respectively, attended the American HIMSS (industry) and AMIA (academic) conferences and published 1,926 papers in the latter. Compared to those of HIMSS in 2015, the meeting duration of Chinese industry CHITEC was 3 vs. 5 days, the number of vendors was 100 vs. 1,500+, the number of sub-forums was 10 vs. 250; while compared to those of AMIA, the meeting duration of Chinese CMIAAS was 2 vs. 8 days, the number of vendors was 5 vs. 65+, the number of sub-forums was 4 vs. 26. HIMSS and AMIA were more open, international, and comprehensive in comparison to the aforementioned Chinese conferences. Conclusions. The current MI in China can be characterized as ''hot in industry application, and cold in academic research.'' Taking into consideration the economic scale together with the huge investment in MI, conference yield and attendee diversity are still low in China. This study demonstrates an urgent necessity to elevate the medical informatics discipline in China and to expand research fields in order to maintain pace with the development of medical informatics in the US and other countries.

References Powered by Scopus

Recommendations of the international medical informatics association (IMIA) on education in biomedical and health informatics

268Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

AMIA Board white paper: Definition of biomedical informatics and specification of core competencies for graduate education in the discipline

183Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Medical informatics: Past, present, future

167Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

A research agenda for ageing in China in the 21st century (2nd edition): Focusing on basic and translational research, long-term care, policy and social networks

385Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The experience and challenges of healthcare-reform-driven medical consortia and Regional Health Information Technologies in China: A longitudinal study

44Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Trends and characteristics of global medical informatics conferences from 2007 to 2017: A bibliometric comparison of conference publications from Chinese, American, European and the Global Conferences

15Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Liang, J., Wei, K., Meng, Q., Chen, Z., Zhang, J., & Lei, J. (2017). Development of medical informatics in China over the past 30 years from a conference perspective and a Sino-American comparison. PeerJ, 2017(11). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4082

Readers over time

‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2502468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 6

67%

Researcher 2

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

11%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 2

40%

Engineering 1

20%

Medicine and Dentistry 1

20%

Psychology 1

20%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0