consequently, the predictive algorithms & preventive actions that follow on from the predictive algorithms in turn depend on the availability and fine tuning of information fed to this pipeline by data analysed upstream. 
The source of the data and application of the concept of P4 medicine, that of empowerment of the patients and moving the paradigm of care from being "hospital centric" to more "patient home/workplace centric" is possible when patients or health consumers have the tools and knowledge to organise care in their own settings, this in turn is facilitated if they have easy access to information sources & support systems available round the clock. Access to social media and easy access to always-on internet service on their handheld devices and home computers (those who can access them) facilitate such practices.  Besides, wellness industry is ready to provide handheld apps and wearable units that connect patients with hospitals and help to put data on the internet so that these are made accessible to the caregivers at all time (citation XXX) -- these factors facilitate the development and advancement of participatory aspect of the care in P4 health care paradigm ahead of the other three concepts.
A search of the participatory health care suggests that there are several channels, processes and athw
In this paper we argue that general practitioners are best candidates for practicing P4 mediicne. We discuss the definition and meanng of P4 medicine and highlight how patients as partners can foster P4 medicine as a developing paradigm in the practice of medicine and general practice. We discuss the current state of the knowledge and future directions.
e-patients
P4 medicine (participatory, predictive, preventive, and personalised medicine)
How these are different from traditional medical practices
Methods of search and selection of studies
Findings
Discussion
Studies have differeed in what works best for fostering patient centric care. XXX (yyyy) has ....
Methods
We searched Pubmed/Medline, Univesity of Canterbury's library site, Google Scholar with the following keywords .... The years we retricted were bw between 20-7 and now (las t ten years).
Results
Table 1 shows ....
Discussion
Notes
Susannah Fox (2007) in  "the engaged e-patient population"
75-80% Americans search for online information. Two major drivers are availability of broadband and personal motivation.  Availability of home broadband is a determinant for Internet access. Those with chronic conditions are more likely to search for internet based health information. those with recent diagnoses are more likely to engage with their doctors on the information they identified on the net.  Pew's 2007 Internet Life project found that despite wide availability of health related information, doctors were stil main source of information for the patients. Only three percent reported that they were harmed by information they received online \cite{fox2008engaged}
This review or recapitulation of the Pew Internet Project on the life of  Americans present a partial but somewhat dated view of the actual picture but this is the only record we have. Since then, the situations have changed.  
Shmuel Giveon et.al. (2009) thought that due to wide access to internet and internet based information on health, the nature of doctor-patient relationships have changed to a more participatory type of relationship. The team wanted to know how did doctors themselves feel about it? How satisfied are they about it? They conducted a self-reported survey of xxx doctors in Israel and found that. One time cross sectional survey of 100 family practice doctors. These doctors were enrolled in a CME activity. they were phoned. They found that the physicians reponded favourably when they were asked about their attitudes towards their patients brining in information from the Internet to them  \cite{giveon2009patient}
Not peer-reviewed (for introduction/discussion)
Dave deBronkert (e-patient Dave, 2013) narrated a personal experience. When he first wrote about his comments about medical record  in a blog, Boston Globe, a newpaper in the US questioned his authority or right to write about something he was not supposed to know. He had renal cell carcinoma with multiple metastases and fractured femur in 2009. He underwent nephrectomy. He has argued what is value in the context of medicine from a patient's perspective.  Awareness of status (he did not know at the time of his diagnosis that he had cancer, a "spot" in his Xray was the diagnostic marker); accuracy of diagnosis - his doctors used both radiological findings and biopsy to confirm the diagnosis;  he received state of the art treatment that are denied to most people he knows; his surgical & clinical care was excellent. Among the system varialbles, he has listed access to care, access to information, choice of provider. Beyond systemic and instutitional issues, he listed that his being informed and engaged helped him. These were taking action to get examined, his advanced planning, his information seeking about choosing providers. He accessed ACOR.org, which is an online community of cancer patients who provide information and share information with each other.  He was direxcted to him by his GP, and he found messages for him within two hours of starting to use ACOR.org website. 
If peer review is the only true path to reliability, how can a patient community have better facts?