If you come across anybody who has not heard of Internet of Things (IoT) be careful, the person surely comes from another planet. IoT is at the centre of any ICT research. Everybody is developing devices, claiming that these will interconnect to anything you already have or will have.
And yet, at home we still have several remote controls for our smart TV, for recording devices, and for the all present black box that allows us to enjoy hours of the most degrading TV shows. Of course, the sound system runs under another completely different set of remote controls: for the CD player, the tuner, not to mention the necessary turntable that we have brought to life again after having been convinced that the sound is a lot more natural on an analogic record than in a digitalized CD.
IoT’s promise is that all our gadgets will be interconnected inside our homes and even with the exterior. A different problem is whether I really want my fridge to send messages to my grocery store to replace that uneatable marmalade that my daughter in law gave me and that I have been struggling to finish for the past two months.
Although the promise is great, reality strikes back. As of today, only 6% of American households have a smart-home device, and 72% of Britons have no plans to adopt smart-home technology in the near future (The Economist 11.06.2016). Of course it does not help that some of the smart gadgets like the Samsung´s smart fridge goes for almost $ 6,000.
IoT marketing is probably missing the point, as has been the case in many new ICT developments. Putting the focus on the ICT novelty will not attract people. Unless the smart-home gadget solves a real problem, it is difficult to convince people to adapt it. Technology is available today for doing almost anything that anybody can think of. The problem is the generational divide. Young people full of energy devise new things that are meant for older people maybe two or even three generations apart. Have they asked those people what they really need? Have they participated in every phase of the development?
Just as a marker, go to the pictures of any of the ICT gatherings in the world and try to spot anybody older than 65. Even those gatherings especially dedicated to ageing, like the yearly AAL Forum which I have attended many years, are packed with young people full of ideas that will be tested on older people just because the rules say so, not really because they feel like it.
And then we come to the pure ICT problem of interconnectivity. It is essential to develop a common standard to allow seamless connectivity among gadgets from different makers. From what I know, that is being done more or less for industrial IoT, but something similar for the domestic domain is lacking.
In all, my bet is that IoT as something integrated in everyday life is a long way off. Only a concerted effort to develop an overall global standardisation, coupled with real intergeneration symbiosis, will bring forward the realization of the home IoT.
Publicado en eHealth (English) | Etiquetado generational divide, ict, interconnected, interconnectivity, intergeneration, Internet of Things, IoT, smart-home, standard, standardisation | 1 Comment »
The process from research to market for any drug includes, in a nut-shell, four phases: identify the need, research, test, and bring it to the market. The last two tasks could be translated into proving the efficacy of the drug (testing), and proving its efficiency (bringing it to the market) so that it is cost-effective. Are all those phases undertaken when dealing with eHealth systems? I think that a clear no is the answer. And if any of those phases are clearly missing, they are the last two a) is the eHealth system more efficient than the current system? b) is the eHealth system cost-effective? Therein lies probably one of the keys to the lack of adoption of eHealth systems across the EU in particular and the world in general.
We’ll assume that organizations are rational entities (I know it is a big assumption) and will not plunge into costs just for the sake of it. So, let us think that if an organization launches the research effort to develop a new eHealth system, it is because it has spotted a need for such a system.
Now for the testing phase. We all know that no drug will be approved if it has not been properly tested. We also understand that the specifications for testing an eHealth system, even if they could be inspired in the methodology for drug testing, have to be adapted to the particularities of ICT. We cannot expect an app to go through the same process as a drug. Developing an app is in the range of thousands of euros, while the development phase for a drug is in the order of millions of euros. But some kind of testing should be done and its results made public so as to prove the efficacy of the system. Please go to any of the online stores that sell apps and check how many include, or make reference to, their efficacy tests results.
eHealth has also a particular characteristic that a drug does not: eHealth interferes with the healthcare process in a way that a drug doesn’t. In this respect, testing the efficacy of a particular eHealth system poses some problems since the efficacy effect is spread throughout the whole healthcare system, while a drug focusses clearly on its effect on patients.
But if testing eHealth has been, in the best of cases, a patchy process, efficiency is completely forgotten. How can we convince a healthcare provider to adopt a particular eHealth system without demonstrating its cost-saving potential? How many eHealth systems do you know that have carried out any of the available techniques for measuring the probable added value to the patient and the healthcare provider? And again we should recognize the difficulty involved in evaluating the efficiency of eHealth. It is not only the previously mentioned spread effect across the healthcare system, but also its effect across other systems such as the social care system. In fact, sometimes an eHealth system has a more profound effect on the social care system than on the healthcare system itself.
But all those difficulties should not blind us to the need to perform, and make available to the public, the testing procedure and the added value calculation of our eHealth systems. I would recommend that the healthcare authorities who have started to approve certain apps, such as in Andalusia or England, make available the results of the efficacy and efficiency evaluations of those apps they approve.
Publicado en eHealth (English) | Etiquetado added value, cost-effective, cost-saving, efficacy, efficiency, ehealth, healthcare, R&D, testing | Leave a Comment »
e-Health has been around for a long time; we could even say it is an old feature in today’s world. But yet, who is really using e-Health today? Do you know of a friend, a neighbor, a relative using any of the many gadgets that are part of e-Health? Don’t focus only on the internet, that is not e-Health by itself. The internet provides information, albeit a lot more information than what we used to have at home. Certainly a lot more, and up-to-date, than the classic “Our bodies, ourselves” which probably a lot of my readers haven’t even heard about and that, by the way, has moved to the www.
Let´s go through the process that has brought us to this point in the history of e-Health. The first push came from the R&D organizations. More specifically, the European Commission, through its many R&D programs, has been financing research for years into what we know today as e-Health. Millions of euros have been lavished all over Europe to make e-Health a reality. As always, in the USA the private sector has been the driving force behind this endeavor. The result is a myriad, I could safely say even a milliard, of what is known as Personal Health Systems and other types of gadgets and integrated e-health systems.
The second lever for securing a wide permeability of e-Health is the people, i.e. the patient or the primary user. The use of ICT technology by the population is increasing by leaps and bounds. The older population, probably the strata that could most profit from the use of ICT tools to maintain their living standards, is changing radically. There is very little in common between the older population of today, and the future older population coming out of the baby boomers of the post-war. A recent study in Spain by Fundación Telefónica reveals that the population older than 55, is using internet for productive proposes (e.g. banking or filing taxes) at the same level as the rest of the population. And it is in these population strata in which the use of smartphones applications is having the biggest boost.
The secondary end user, the socio-health professional, is obviously an important lever for spreading the use of ICT socio-health applications. Although maybe a little dated, PwC released a study in 2012 on m-Health concluding that “Healthcare’s strong resistance to change will slow adoption of innovative m-Health”. A closer look at the study reveals that it is the skepticism of the professionals that hinders the extensive use of m-Health in particular and e-Health in general. Because I believe that unless professionals prescribe e-Health gadgets with the same confidence that they prescribe today a medicine or a treatment, e-Health will not take off.
But for that to happen, the fourth lever has to act. This is no other than the socio-health care system; in Europe led by the public sector. It is very telling that while one branch of the public sector is pouring money into R&D, the other branch is simply ignoring the fact that ICT tools could save a lot of money in taking care of the socio and health ailments of the population they are covering. Is it so difficult for the politicians responsible for R&D and those in charge of the socio-health system to talk to each other? Apparently so, but I would appreciate your views on the subject so that among all of us we could find a path to a better and more e-Health world.
Publicado en eHealth (English) | Etiquetado ageing, e-health, health care, ict, m-health, older people, personal health system, phs, socio-health care | Leave a Comment »
This is a real story of a real person in a real country that, I am afraid, can be replicated across many other countries in Europe. It is a story about cuts in healthcare services and its real influences in overall expending for the Government and for the people.
Mr. XXX is a manual worker whose job implies using his arms to move thing around. After several months of feeling that his right arm was hurting, he went to visit the primary care doctor. The diagnosis was clear: a strong tendinitis that prevents him from performing his duties until he is properly treated. So the primary care physician sent him to the traumatologist for consultation and further treatment.
And here the nightmare starts. Due to cuts in healthcare personnel, the waiting list for traumatology is such that Mr. XXX receives an appointment for 90 days from now. What are the implications? First, Mr XXX cannot work and he will be on sick leave for at least the next three months. He will be paid by the social security a percentage of his salary, with a complement by his employer to make up for the basic 100% of his salary. Secondly, his employer will have to employ another person to fulfil Mr. XXX duties.
So the outcome is that, by cutting back on personnel disregarding the actual demand, the health service has prompted an increase on the social security budget and at the employer’sexpense, while Mr. XXX lies in bed weighing to be taken care of!
Are these the savings that we are aiming for? I certainly doubt it.
Publicado en eHealth (English) | Etiquetado cost-effective, health care, primary care, waiting list | Leave a Comment »