Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Si l’automédication, après consultation de forums en ligne, est une pratique courante, un autre phénomène pourrait permettre aux patients renseignés d’avoir un suivi de leur état de leur santé : l’accès et l’étude de leurs données médicales. Une nouvelle opportunité pour la recherche relayée par un article du New York Times.
Via Philippe Marchal
This post is about an issue I plan to address during my visit at Mayo Clinic: the changing role of the patient and how that change is significantly powered by social media. Creating the best possible future for both patients and clinicians depends on our understanding this clearly and formally, so we can agree about what’s possible, and then practice health and care accordingly.
"When Lori Abrams was named director of advocacy, diversity, and patient engagement for Global Development Operations at Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), she had no one to manage. In fact, her first assignment was to create the department she would oversee. “The first thing I realized was there didn’t seem to be many such departments for me to benchmark against,” she notes. “I went around to a lot of pharma companies trying to find someone to talk to, but an advocacy position focused on clinical trials just didn’t seem to exist.”"
Via VAB Traductions
Gadgets et dispositifs médicaux, la différence tient à la connectivité Plus j’y réfléchis, et plus le terme de santé interconnectée me paraît plus adapté. En effet, si nous tentons de mieux dessiner les contours du concept, qu’est-ce que ce nouveau système 3.0, voire 4.0 car il me semblait que les versions 3.0 faisaient référence solutions en mode SAAS simples, aux ...
Via TéléSanté Centre
It’s a question that comes up all the time in my discussions with senior industry executives – is social media actually worth the risk for a sector as heavily regulated as the pharmaceutical industry?
And while some may roll their eyes and denounce pharma as being backward for asking such a question, I don’t agree – it’s a great question and an extremely valid one. Every business decision has to consider risk versus benefit.
But here’s the problem with measuring that risk-benefit ratio: you need to consider the timeframe. It’s true for every decision ever made, no matter how big or small and it also applies to our personal lives. For example, there is a small but finite risk involved every time you travel in a car, train, boat or plane. If I considered that risk, versus the benefit of travelling to business meetings, over just a 24h timeframe I’d probably never bother (and also be perceived as being a little odd!). But at least some of those meetings will turn into mutually beneficial commercial relationships, so the benefit far outweighs the risk for me when you look at it over the longer-term. In fact, there is a longer-term risk, to my livelihood, from not travelling that is more worrying than the immediate one.
So if you’re just looking at the short-term risk-benefit ratio of anything you’re getting a distorted picture. This is exactly how I challenge people in pharma to look at it when they ask me about risk.
The benefits of social media engagement by pharmaceutical companies are very clear to me and, at a simple level, they are twofold.
Firstly, the relationships formed via social media engagement translate to the offline world. I know this because I’ve seen it happen many times with my business. Many of the healthcare influencers (patients / patient organisation leaders, industry executives, influential healthcare providers, media etc.) who I know on first-name terms initially met me via social media. When access to these people is often a major barrier for pharmaceutical companies the value of social media cannot be ignored.
Secondly, the kind of direct feedback you can receive via social media is fantastically useful – both directly online and, in line with the way it builds ‘real-world’ relationships outlined above, from subsequent offline conversations. In the information age, this kind of input that can only be obtained by being well-connected, can deliver a critical advantage. Social media listening is a start, but engaging delivers a whole new level of intelligence.
So that’s it – access to key customers and unique insights are the two main benefits for pharma using social media, in my view. Both have a major impact on the bottom line success of products.
And the immediate risks of engaging online? Most of them carry even bigger risks from not engaging in the longer-term.
For example, companies worry about picking up adverse events about their products, necessitating subsequent action. Yes – this might well happen, but what if people are having adverse events when using your products and you’re not picking them up? Where does that lead?
Or the notion that by taking part in social media activity, your critics might start to attack you. If you have such vocal critics the reality is they are already attacking you online and, unless you listen, you can’t take the necessary action to remedy it. So by not engaging, the reputational risk to your business – and associated commercial risk – is massive.
I could go on and on, but hopefully you get my point.
Online social engagement is here to stay. It’s only going to get more and more important as a conduit for connectivity and information sharing. So next time someone in pharma asks you if social media is worth the risk, ask them to cast their gaze a bit further down the line to a point when all their competitors are engaging online.
Is not engaging on social media then worth the risk?
Some reports show that up to nine out of 10 adverse reactions from drugs go unreported. In an effort to find those possible adverse drug reactions in medications, pharmaceutical companies are reportedly searching social media for a better chance at learning of potential adverse drug reactions. There are many potential adverse drug reactions that patients might not think of to report to their health care provider, according to The Pharmaceutical Journal.
“Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are grossly under reported by everyone, including healthcare professionals, but particularly so by patients,” David Lewis, head of global safety at the Switzerland-based pharmaceutical company Novartis. Novartis is working on a three-year project called Web-RADR (Recognizing Adverse Drug Reactions) that will in part use social media information to determine if there are aftermarket adverse drug reactions in various medications. The program even uses the hashtag #pharmacovigilance.
Everyday, people take to social media and talk about their medication or their children’s medication. These scientists believe these posts have the potential to quickly warn pharmaceutical companies of potential drug reactions.
“Mining data from social media gives us a greater chance of capturing ADRs that a patient wouldn’t necessarily complain about to their doctor or nurse. Physicians are great at diagnosing illnesses and noting objective signs, but patients are great at reporting subjective reactions and feelings,” Lewis explained.”For example, a psychiatrist can’t see suicidal ideation as an ADR while a patient can describe it perfectly.”
Long before social media took on the form we see today, an American with HIV began taking antiretroviral medications, according to The Pharmaceutical Journal. On a patient web forum discussion board for the drug, back in 1997, the man wrote, “My belly button went from an inny to an outy.”
Before long, other patients reported the same adverse reaction to the antiretroviral drug on the discussion board. The adverse reaction was initially only reported through this old school form of social media. It became known as lipodystrophy syndrome. No one had even known it was a possible reaction that could come from the drug, because the drug’s safety trial only ran for 48 weeks, and this syndrome didn’t develop until after that 48 week cut-off point used by the drug company’s safety assessors. Therein lies the value of social media monitoring for adverse drug reactions, the pharmacovigilance supporters say.
Still, the idea of monitoring social media doesn’t sit well with some people, while others wonder whether a patient experiencing an adverse drug reaction who posts about it on social media should be contacted and informed of what they might be experiencing. “Would that be helpful or creepy,” the scientists wonder.
What do you think? How would you feel if someone contacted you and told you that, while searching social media for evidence of adverse drug reactions, they stumbled on your social media post?
It’s hard to find a pharma or medical device company these days that doesn’t have at least one mobile app in development. And now that, as of February 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance on which apps need to be regulated and which ones don’t, it will be interesting to see if this almost exponential development trend continues.
Federal guidance alone doesn’t guarantee an app’s success, and there is still plenty of playing field for developers in the health and wellness space for apps that do not require 510(k) submission. Therefore, developers and marketers alike must keep in mind these three key drivers of mobile health app adoption.
In a 2014 poll by QuantiaMD, only 37% of physicians surveyed said that they had recommended a mobile app to their patients. In another QuantiaMD poll, 42% of physicians said they would notrecommend a mobile health app to patients because there was no regulatory oversight (though the new FDA guidance should help with this). In addition, another 37% percent had no idea what mobile health apps are out there.
In spite of physicians being split on the utility of apps, consumers are downloading them at a rapid pace. In fact, it is estimated that within the next three years half of all smartphone and tablet users will have at least one mobile health or wellness app, like Lose It!, RunKeeper, or Glucose Buddy. But, downloading doesn’t necessarily mean they are using them! There is enormous opportunity for healthcare marketers to more effectively demonstrate the myriad of app benefits to patients and physicians alike.
Via Pharma Guy
In the 1966 film Fantastic Voyage, miniaturised doctors in a tiny submarine are implanted in a patient’s body to cure a bloodclot. Today, reality has caught up with science fiction. Instead of a submarine, however, tiny sensors can be swallowed that
Via Richard Platt
Emerging research investigates the ethical and medical privacy ramifications in the use of social media to aid clinical treatment.
In today’s world, the opportunity to be transparent and share information about yourself with others is easy. Be it tweet it, snap it, pin it, post it… there is a method to share information with others, often with an intent of obtaining common ground connectivity.
Given this information ubiquity, should doctors be allowed to access, review, and then take action if they see a problem?
In a new study, University Hospitals Case Medical Center Psychiatrist Stephanie Pope, M.D., examined the impact of social media on mental health care and treatment.
She specifically investigated how the public forums could help diagnoses in clinical practice as well as serving as behavioral predictors.
Her analysis also explored the ethical aspects of patient/doctor relationships that utilize social media outlets.
Study findings were enlightening as Dr. Pope discovered that doctors and patients are communicating via social networks, an interaction that sometimes blur lines of their relationships.
Pope discovered instances where social media research of patients in treatment helped to prevent injury. Although these episodes were documented, she found that definitive, institutional policy, and procedures were sorely lagging causing potential issues in patient care.
Dr. Pope will present the study, “Social Media and Psychiatry” at the American Psychiatric Association Meeting in May in Toronto.
In her research, she surveyed psychiatrists and psychologists to better understand social media significance, impact as well as particular guidelines and ethics associated with patient/doctor relationships.
She also examined the intersection of ethical, professional, and legal considerations on social platforms. The transparency of the communication channel sometimes creates ambiguous and complex interactions between health professionals and patients.
“This study was conducted as an effort to demonstrate the clinical implications of social media and form an understanding of the legal and ethical consequences of social media within practice,” said Pope.
“Institutions across the country lack protocols relating to the media forms and professional guidelines need to be established.”
The numbers associated with social media usage are staggering. In 2013, Facebook alone had 751 million users while Twitter continued to surge with 555 million accounts that averaged 58 million tweets every day.
The amount of personal information such as photos, hometown information, and cell phone numbers are easily accessible online. Additionally, new mediums continued to surface as well where people share information such as Snapchat and Instagram.
The statistics and data don’t necessarily get risky until they enter into the personal health realm where 60 percent of patients are seeking support, knowledge, and information about their own health utilizing social media platforms.
The medical community has followed suit with the trending numbers of social media users.
According to a study in 2008, 64 percent of medical students and 13 percent of residents were active on Facebook and of that percentage only 37 percent of those active kept their profiles private, away from potential patients. Most recently, the data showed a substantial spike in active profiles held by doctors and medical students with almost 90 percent maintaining some sort of social media accounts.
Dr. Pope’s research noted that doctors and patients can effectively use the social forums to help their conditions and find support, while selecting the best options for care. Additionally, doctors can use social media for a number of positive aspects, but that clear, definable protocols should be set in place.
Dr. Pope’s also focused her research and analyzed social media’s impact on her area of expertise and found alarming statistics relating to suicidal ideations, behaviors, and specific illnesses. Most importantly, the validation of social media aiding in treatment and being clinically relevant became obvious.
“We need to understand the magnitude that social media is having on our clinical practice but at the same time we need to develop patient/doctor boundaries,” said Dr. Pope.
“When a patient comes to the emergency room and has had thoughts about suicide, social media channels can help… but how, when and if can use this information is at the core of the argument.”
Steven Keating, a graduate student at the MIT Media Lab and a brain cancer survivor, was the subject of an article this week, presented as a super data cruncher of his own patient information.
The young scientist’s collection and analysis of his own data makes him an extraordinary exception today, but physicians and health care experts say he is a sprinter along a path others are walking — toward consumers taking a more active interest in gathering, studying and sharing their medical data. Better-informed patients, they say, are more likely to take better care of themselves, comply with prescription drug regimens and even detect early-warning signals of illness, as Mr. Keating did.
Via Alex Butler
You don’t see or hear doctors talk about themselves in public very often. Yet it happened last night – on Twitter.
Just when I thought I had seen it all, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners organised its first twitter chat for GPs. The topic was ‘doctors treating doctors’.
It was a great example of effective social media use and a free, open access learning opportunity for social media savvy GPs. Doctors are usually not the best patients, nor are they always comfortable looking after colleagues. It was heartening to see that the RACGP and many doctors were willing to discuss these personal topics on Twitter.
The chat was unique for several reasons:It took place on a public forumDoctors openly discussing their own care doesn’t happen every dayIt was the first twitter chat organised by the RACGPDoctors could earn CPD points by participating
Twitter chats go at high-speed – especially when there are many participants. This can be a challenge, but the amount of valuable information shared within that one hour was amazing. I certainly learned a lot, and for me it was a reminder to book an annual check-up with my GP.
Couldn’t agree more. You can check it all out under the Twitter hashtag #RACGPed.
Many thanks to the RACGP(WA), Dr Penny Wilson, Dr Hilton Koppe and Dr Sean Stevens for organising the first RACGP Twitter chat.
Recommended reading from the Australian Family Physician:Barriers to good health careOptimising the medical care of doctors – before the consultationOptimising the medical care of doctors – during the consultation
Technology is advancing how medicine is practiced, giving patients the chance to participate more fully in their healthcare. These new developments have the potential to elevate the provider-patient
Via Richard Meyer
A new study has found a correlation between how hospitals are rated on Facebook’s five-star system and how well they performed on a widely-used measure of quality care.
Late in 2013, Facebook began providing organizations the option of allowing users to post ratings ranging from one to five stars on their official Facebook pages. The current study was designed to compare hospitals’ 30-day readmission rates with their Facebook ratings.
“We found that the hospitals in which patients were less likely to have unplanned readmissions within the 30 days after discharge had higher Facebook ratings than were those with higher readmission rates,” says lead author McKinley Glover, M.D., MHS, a clinical fellow in the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Department of Radiology.
“Since user-generated social media feedback appears to be reflective of patient outcomes, hospitals and healthcare leaders should not underestimate social media’s value in developing quality improvement programs.”
As the use of social media has grown, consumers’ health care decisions may be influenced by information posted to social media sites by patients and others, the authors note. Several hospitals and healthcare organizations use social media for a variety of reasons, but there has been little investigation into whether hospitals ratings on social media accurately reflect patient satisfaction or the quality of care received.
For the study, the researchers analyzed data from Hospital Compare — a website sponsored by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services — on 30-day readmission rates for 4,800 U.S. hospitals. While more than 80 percent had rates within the expected national average range, seven percent had significantly lower-than-average readmission rates — a measure that reflects above-average care — and eight percent had rates that were significantly higher than average.
Low-readmission hospitals were more likely to have Facebook pages than were high-readmission hospitals — 93 percent versus 82 percent — and more than 80 percent of those in both groups with Facebook pages provided the five-star rating system. The findings showed that each one-star increase in a hospital’s Facebook rating was tied to a greater than five-fold increase in the likelihood that it would have a low, rather than a high readmission rate.
Other data available on hospital Facebook pages — such as the number of times users reported visiting the hospital, how long a hospital’s Facebook page had been available, and the number of Facebook ‘likes’ — did not make a difference in readmission rates.
“While we can’t say conclusively that social media ratings are fully representative of the actual quality of care, this research adds support to the idea that social media has quantitative value in assessing the areas of patient satisfaction — something we are hoping to study next — and other quality outcomes,” says Glover.
“Hospitals should be aware that social media ratings may influence patient perceptions of hospitals and potentially their healthcare choices. Hospitals and other healthcare organizations should also be aware of the potential message they send by not using social media.
“Members of the general public should be encouraged to provide accurate feedback on their healthcare experiences via social media, but should not rely solely on such ratings to make their health care decisions.”
Within 24 hours of Apple launching its platform for health research this month, tens of thousands of iPhone users had signed up to take part in five inaugural studies involving some of the US’s most respected medical institutions. A Harvard-affiliate
Via Richard Meyer
On l’appelle « ET-D5 » et elle pourrait bien révolutionner le milieu médical. Découverte par le Dr Aurélie Juhem, cette molécule est capable d’arrêter la prolifération d’une tumeur puis de détruire spécifiquement les vaisseaux formés pour l’alimenter. Testée avec succès sur des souris, cette molécule « miracle » sera expérimentée en 2016 sur des humains.