eHealth - Social Business in Health
7.3K views | +0 today
Follow
eHealth - Social Business in Health
ehealth, integrating care, health monitoring, on line communication, interaction and (mobile) technology to care for health better
Curated by rob halkes
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Europe's Doctors Embrace Digital Helpers—Up to a Point - eMarketer

Europe's Doctors Embrace Digital Helpers—Up to a Point - eMarketer | eHealth - Social Business in Health | Scoop.it
Most doctors in France, Germany and the UK believe innovations such as wellness apps and wearable monitors are here to stay. However, they also see some drawbacks.

See this blog by eMarketeer based on research by Ipsos Healthcare


Doctors throughout Europe already work in an environment full of advanced technology, including highly sophisticated diagnostic and surgical equipment and other state-of-the-art devices. These days, though, they also need to deal with the gadgets in the hands of consumers—their patients. And doctors have mixed feelings about the explosion of mobile apps, wearables and other digital tools aimed at boosting consumers’ awareness and control of their own health.

 That’s not to say that medics don’t see essential value in a lot of the new tools on offer. According to the “Digital Doctor Report 2015” from Ipsos Healthcare, 72% of doctors polled in France, Germany and the UK had either used or recommended an app, online health forum or wearable technology in the previous year.

While four in every five doctors felt technology was increasingly important and would play a permanent role in healthcare, many were unsure what that role would be. For example, most doctors sampled by Ipsos were wary of overstating the benefits of mobile health apps. Some 13% said that mobile technology would eventually replace routine checkups for stable patients with chronic problems—but 26% disagreed. One in 10 said that disease/compliance monitoring apps used alongside drugs would become a prerequisite for patients being reimbursed by insurance companies for their health expenses—but 37% said this wouldn’t happen. Asked whether apps were key to improving patients’ adherence to health regimes, 15% of doctors said they agreed—but 21% said apps were not key.

Moreover, significant numbers of doctors had doubts about the usefulness of some digital health solutions, at least in their current form. Mobile technology such as apps and wearables were a particular focus of concern—though the level of worry varied from one country to another. In the UK, for example, the overwhelming majority of the sample agreed that “mobile technology is a reliable means of monitoring health data”; just 11% disagreed. But in France, 24% disagreed, and in Germany, the proportion was 29%.

Similarly, most doctors did think mobile technology would help simplify access to healthcare. But more than one in 10 in the UK and Germany did not agree. In France, a notable 33% of doctors did not subscribe to this view.

Many doctors in the Ipsos study were also thinking ahead to potential conflicts arising from consumer use of apps and other digital tools. After all, most healthcare professionals in advanced economies have already seen large numbers of patients self-diagnosing with the aid of Google search or the websites of medical organizations—and arguing with their doctors as a result.



While doctors polled by Ipsos generally acknowledged that technology could help with therapy and monitoring chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart ailments, 27% feared that mobile apps would create more conflict with patients.

Again, the top worries varied by country. Nearly two-thirds of doctors in the UK were concerned that patients could misinterpret data from digital health tools. In Germany, about six in 10 respondents felt these tools could fuel hypochondria, and in France, more than half of doctors were unhappy about the lack of security and privacy involved in using them.

Because the application of digital technology to day-to-day consumer healthcare is pretty new, most doctors (73%) couldn’t say exactly what they wanted it to do. But among those that did have a clear view on this, monitoring was the top function they identified.

See more at: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Europes-Doctors-Embrace-Digital-HelpersUp-Point/1012837?ecid=NL1002#sthash.bqTvbQbq.dpuf

rob halkes's insight:

Inspiring information on Doctors' views on ehealth!

Do they represent doctors' beliefs in digital apps? Are they cautious about negative impact on therapy, diagnosis? Don't they trust their patients with digital? Or be it all concerns about the sustainability of their medical business, fear for fundamental change? Who would say? I guess further research!

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by rob halkes
Scoop.it!

Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: A Systematic Review

Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: A Systematic Review | eHealth - Social Business in Health | Scoop.it
Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: A Systematic Review
ABSTRACT

Background: During the last decade, the Internet has become increasingly popular and is now an important part of our daily life. When new “Web 2.0” technologies are used in health care, the terms “Health 2.0" or "Medicine 2.0” may be used.
Objective: The objective was to identify unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and recurrent topics within the definitions.
Methods: A systematic literature review of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL) and gray literature on the Internet using the search engines Google, Bing, and Yahoo was performed to find unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. We assessed all literature, extracted unique definitions, and selected recurrent topics by using the constant comparison method.
Results: We found a total of 1937 articles, 533 in scientific databases and 1404 in the gray literature. We selected 46 unique definitions for further analysis and identified 7 main topics.
Conclusions: Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 are still developing areas. Many articles concerning this subject were found, primarily on the Internet. However, there is still no general consensus regarding the definition of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. We hope that this study will contribute to building the concept of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and facilitate discussion and further research.

(J Med Internet Res 2010;12(2):e18)

During the last decade, the Internet has become increasingly popular and now forms an important part of our daily life [1]. In the Netherlands, the Internet is even more popular than traditional media like television, radio, and newspapers [2]. Furthermore, the impact of the Internet and other technological developments on health care is expected to increase [3,4]. Patients are using search engines like Google and Bing to find health related information. In Google, five percent of all searches are health related [5]. Patients can express their feelings on weblogs and online forums [3], and patients and professionals can use the Internet to improve communication and the sharing of information on websites such as Curetogether [6] and the Dutch website, Artsennet [7] for medical professionals. The use of Internet or Web technology in health care is called eHealth [1,8].

In 2004 the term “Web 2.0” was introduced. O’Reilly defined Web 2.0 as “a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet, a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects” [9]. Although there are different definitions, most have several aspects in common. Hansen defined Web 2.0 as “a term which refers to improved communication and collaboration between people via social networking” [10]. According to both definitions, the main difference between Web 1.0 (the first generation of the Internet) and Web 2.0 is interaction [11]. Web 1.0 was mostly unidirectional, whereas Web 2.0 allows the user to add information or content to the Web, thus creating interaction. This is why the amount of “user-generated content” has increased enormously [12]. Practical examples of user-generated content are online communities where users can participate and share content. Examples are YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, and microblogging such as Twitter. Twitter, for example, improves communication and the sharing of information among health care professionals [13]....

rob halkes's insight:

Review!

more...
No comment yet.