Tag Archives: personalised care

Quantified self – the downside

The manufacturers of wearable health tech devices are set to make millions if not billions. Wearables are relatively cheap adjuncts to existing technology. But what difference will they make to the health and well being of the average user?  We have been offered a preview of what these devices can do- monitor your heart rate, blood pressure and blood glucose. Keep track of your respiratory rate, calorie expenditure and sleep patterns. Detect cardiac arrythmias and abnormal brain electrical activity. It sounds good, but so what? If you experience a significant drop or severe rise in blood pressure you are going to notice even before you check the readings- you will feel very unwell. Similarly low blood sugar and dysfunction of the respiratory or cardiac system. Do we really need our smartphone to tell us we aren’t taking enough exercise and eating too much? Or that it’s time to see a doctor urgently? I agree with Jay Parkinson:

The exclusive-to-human part of our brain evolved so we can be creative and manipulate the world around us so we can invent things like the iPhone. And now, the creators of the iPhone want to give us the tools we need to badly do what evolution solved for us hundreds of millions of years ago.

Here’s the problem with this technology in practice:

About 10 percent are “quantified selfers” with an affinity for this kind of feedback; just by looking at the numbers, they are motivated to be more active. An additional 20 percent to 30 percent need some encouragement in addition to tracker data to effectively change their behavior. Kamal Jethwani

Therefore the vast majority of people who buy a wearable device right now will not benefit from that purchase. Those who do, might be amenable to other interventions. Unfortunately much of the data is meaningless or has no impact on long term decisions about health and well being. Sure, a trend in high blood pressure over a few weeks might indicate a need for treatment but a single high reading might be an anomaly or simply confirm that you are excited. Worrying about every little bleep on the chart is not going to add to your quality of life but will detract from it. For a sustained and beneficial change in life style people need more than data. They need motivation and help to workout the benefits of making different choices. They need the undivided attention of a practitioner who understands their needs and assists with a bespoke plan.

Information that we need right now, which our built in human senses may not already have alerted us to is another issue; microscopic haematuria (blood in the urine) proteinuria (protein in the urine), faecal occult bleeding (blood in the faeces), raised intraoccular pressure (high pressure in the eye ball) and changes in moles, breast or testicles will prompt doctors to investigate for sinister causes. Investigations that might lead to the early diagnosis of some costly and treatable or life limiting condition. Acquiring this information doesn’t require you to wear a device continually for a year. The business case for manufacturing devices to do that isn’t as compelling because of a limited market. Enthusiasts for wearables argue that:

Studies are beginning that examine the data from wearables, which is much more granular data about human activity than scientists have been able to access previously. This will answer questions like: how much of an increase in activity, of what type (moderate or cardio-challenging) leads to what degree of health benefit? Todd Hixon

What we may also discover is that there are probably side effects associated with wearable devices. Psychological harm may be associated with prolonged and heightened anxiety and obsession with self. What we won’t discover (and this is a guess) is that there is a short cut to losing weight that doesn’t require any significant effort. We might also discover that there are limited indications for wearable devices and that the market for them is much smaller than we envisage. Parallels exist with some parts of the pharmaceutical industry which has begun to promote ‘illnesses’ that would benefit from it’s offerings. So called disease mongering. We may well find ourselves being circumspect about wearables in the way that we have misgivings about drugs:

…drugs approved for devastating illness, such as clinical depression, are indicated for milder conditions, such as shyness, which is now dubbed ‘social phobia’. Howard Wolinsky

Data is no more the answer to all problems than are drugs. The indications for collecting data have parallels with the indications for prescribing drugs and how and why that data is collected merits thought. Those who promote the use of wearables need to question a trend which isn’t without a downside.

Managing demand for primary care

Why do people consult doctors? At first glance because they feel unwell. However research suggests that the reasons are far more complex than that. Innovators also know that the answer to this question is vital for those seeking an agile, intuitive, creative and cheap solution to the demand for their services. Theories predict the consultation habits of many patients. I especially like this summary:

The overall prevalence of symptoms in the community is not closely related to general practice consultation rates, and the consulting population is a selected population of those who are in need of medical care. The literature reviewed suggests that poor health status, social disadvantage poor social support and inadequate coping strategies are associated with higher consultation rates. Some populations subgroups may experience particular barriers to seeking care. Campbell and Roland

Innovators might also ask why are those patients sitting in my waiting room? I remember a hoary old tale of a doctor who was feeling especially grumpy one day and stormed through the waiting room announcing that anyone who thought they had a ‘real’ problem should stay everyone else should go home- half the waiting room emptied.

It seems quite a few people who go to doctors will have symptoms- however a proportion will be back there by invitation. How big a proportion and why have they been invited back? There are many reasons to schedule a repeat appointment. It conveys the notion that the patient will be harmed if they don’t see a doctor on a given day for one or more of these reasons:

1. Their response to treatment is unpredictable and the dose or drug may need to be revised

2. They have a condition that can’t be diagnosed or may progress or need additional measures by a specified date

However other reasons for requesting a review include:

1. The doctor isn’t confident that the diagnosis is correct and wants a chance to review the advice issued.

2. The patient is required by someone (e.g. an employer) to produce evidence of a visit to a doctor

3. A full waiting room ensures the doctor looks busy for whatever other reason.

4. The doctor needs to reinforce the impression that the condition has been taken seriously.

The time cost for doing everything that could possibly be recommended for patients with chronic conditions  has been shown to be untenable. Either the guidelines are wrong or a different solution needs to be found for at least some of these people. What is the evidence for asking a patient to return within a week or two with a specific new condition and within a month with a longstanding condition?

There is a need to be proactive in some cases. However is it possible that we encourage people to attend for review appointments when there is a low probability that they will benefit? Are there other reasons to fill the waiting room?