Clarifying the relationship between biomedical and health informatics and digital health: expert perspectives.

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• Effect Size: Not applicable — qualitative expert opinion study; no quantitative effect size reported

• Primary Outcome: Only one-third of MEDINFO 2025 panel attendees clearly distinguished BMHI from DH in a real-time audience poll, indicating widespread conceptual ambiguity in the professional community. Expert panellists presented distinct viewpoints on how BMHI can maintain its scientific identity while engaging with DH initiatives.

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not applicable — qualitative/conceptual study; the audience poll result (approximately 33% distinguishing the two fields) serves as the sole quantitative data point, though its methodological provenance (sample size, question wording, response options) is not described in the abstract

Clinical Application

The conceptual framework proposed by the panellists is directly applicable to academic programme design and professional credentialling decisions. Feasibility of implementation depends on institutional willingness to engage with definitional distinctions that may have funding and accreditation implications. No new clinical tools, technologies, or interventions are proposed. Highly relevant to the Australian context. The Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) and the national My Health Record system operate at the intersection of BMHI and DH, and the definitional ambiguity discussed in this paper has direct implications for workforce planning under the National Digital Health Strategy 2023–2028. RACGP and ACHI (Australasian College of Health Informatics) members involved in curriculum development for health informatics programmes — including those at universities offering Graduate Certificates and Masters programmes in health informatics — would benefit from engaging with these expert perspectives. The TGA's increasing regulatory attention to software as a medical device (SaMD) also underscores the need for clear disciplinary boundaries between clinical informatics competencies and broader DH technology deployment. Health informatics educators, curriculum developers, health system digital transformation leaders, clinical informaticists, and policymakers engaged in digital health strategy and workforce planning

Abstract

The rise of digital health (DH) has sparked debates about its relationship with the long-established field of biomedical and health informatics (BMHI), with some questioning the need for new academic programmes in DH since much of the likely content is already covered in BMHI training programmes. At the International Medical Informatics Association panel, 'Shaping the Future of Biomedical and Health Informatics in the Digital Health Era' (MEDINFO 2025), only one-third of participants clearly distinguished the two fields, highlighting conceptual ambiguities and the influence of DH narratives. This article compiles the perspectives expressed by the panellists, all experienced BMHI scholars, presenting their distinct viewpoints on how the field can maintain its scientific identity while engaging with emerging DH initiatives.

References

1. 1.Degoulet, P., Shortliffe, E. H., Lovis, C., Hammond, W. E., Marin, H. de F., Jack Li, Y.-C., Rienhoff, O., & Séroussi, B. (2026). Clarifying the relationship between biomedical and health informatics and digital health: expert perspectives. BMJ Health & Care Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2026-102101