2) the availability of broadband wireless connectivity, and
3) consumer demand for individualized care.
The DMCB suspects any one of the DMCB's 5000 regular readers could have written this article. Like Steinhubl et al, they already know that patients want self-diagnosis and condition monitoring. Health consumers want greater efficiencies and enhanced patient-physician collaboration.
Even tech-skeptics have to admit that it's possible that mHealth could lead to a utilization trifecta of fewer office visits, avoided emergency room visits and decreased hospitalizations. Imagine the handheld that can accurately catalog signs and symptoms that help the user discern between a simple self-limited cold vs. a more serious case of pneumonia, or benign skipped heart beats vs. a more worrisome arrythmia.
If they work right, providers could review summary data and offer guidance via emails and texts in lieu of adding a patient on to the schedule at 5 PM. If done right, the background algorithms could liberate physicians to pay greater attention to the important stuff that requires their complex cognitive or procedural skills.
The authors point out that that doesn't mean it's going to be easy. Medicine is complex and getting paid for it is more so. There's also worry - warranted or not - about the decline of face-to-face doctor-patient relationship. mHealth can lead to overwhelming data gluts characterized by a lot of numbers with little actionable insight. Finally, there's the danger that an app can offer ineffective, inaccurate or dangerous guidance that leads to patient harm.
Bravo to the editors of JAMA for recognizing the importance of the topic and committing precious space to this manuscript.
That being said, however, this article fails to give a full accounting of all the opportunities as well as risks for "mHealth."
First off, as this Kaiser Health News article demonstrates, there are two additional opportunity dimensions that draw on the population health management business model 1) Apps are not just for diagnosis and monitoring, but also for wellness, and
2) They're being principally sponsored by commercial health insurers who not only readily embrace innovation, but probably consider apps a "sticky" way to maintain customer loyalty. That is doubly true for engaged enrollees who ultimately represent a better insurance risk. In fact, the DMCB suspects that value proposition is so compelling that insurers are willing to use apps as a "loss leader."
Oh, and while mHealth can be built, it's far more likely it's being bought. As in population health management vendors.
Risks? You bet.....
1) The fit of mHealth with the electronic health record (EHR) remains an open question. The DMCB is no coding geek, but it's safe to say that it's not automatic that two independently contrived technologies can automatically "speak" to each other or that the data from an app can by downloaded, summarized and coherently presented to a user at the point of care.
2) As noted in this article on telemonitoring , it's also not necessarily true that mHealth can be equated with stand-alone technology. Depending on the condition and the need, mHealth will have to be often tethered to human support services.
3) As even casual observers are aware, allegations of "malpractice" are not unusual in health care. Rather than comment on its friends who make a living off of contingency fees, the DMCB will only point out that mHealth may offer a target-rich rich environment for personal injury attorneys intent on using the legal theory of joint and several liability to maximum effect. That threat may slow adoption of mHealth.