Another bit of convergence this week and last is the appearance of several articles, closely together, about digital health a/k/a health tech or ‘Dr. Robot’. It seems like that for every pundit, writer, and guru who believes “We’ve Arrived”, there’s some discouraging study or contra-news saying “We’re Nowhere Near The New Jerusalem”. This Editor’s been on the train since 2006 (making her a Pioneer but not as Grizzled as some), and wonders if we will ever Get There.
Nearing Arrival is the POV of Naomi Fried’s article in Mobihealthnews giving her readers the keys to unlock digital health. “Digital health will be the dominant form of non-acute care.” It has value in chopping through the thicket of the low clinical impact technologies that dominate the current scene (Research2Guidance counted only 325,000 health apps and 3.6bn downloads in 2017). Where the value lies:
- Diagnosis and evaluation–devices that generate analyzable data
- Virtual patient care–telehealth and remote patient monitoring
- Digiceuticals–digital therapeutics delivered via apps
- Medication compliance–apps, sensors, games, ingestibles (e.g. Proteus)
At the Arrival Platform and changing the timetable is machine learning. Already algorithms have grown into artificial neural networks that mimic animal learning behavior. Though the descriptions seem like trial and error, they are fast cycling through cheap, fast cloud computing. Machine learning already can accurately diagnose skin cancer, lung cancer, seizure risk, and in-hospital events like mortality [TTA 14 Feb]. It’s being debated on how to regulate them which according to Editor Charles Lowe will be quite difficult [TTA 25 Oct 17]. Returning to machine learning, its effect on diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction may be seismic. Grab a coffee for The Training Of Dr. Robot: Data Wave Hits Medical Care (Kaiser Health News). Hat tip to EIC Emeritus Steve Hards.
The (necessary?) bucket of Cold Water comes from KQED Science which looked at two studies and more, and deduced that the Future Wasn’t Here. Yet.:
- NPJ Digital Medicine’s 15 Jan meta-analysis of 16 remote patient monitoring (RPM) studies using biosensors (from an initial scan of 777) and found little evidence that RPM improves outcomes. The researchers found that many patients are not yet interested in or willing to share RPM data with their physicians. The fact that only 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) made the cut is indicative of the lack of maturity (or priority on research) for RPM.
- In JMIR 18 Jan, a systematic review of 23 systematic reviews of 371 studies found that efficacy of mobile health interventions was limited, but there was moderate quality evidence of improvement in asthma patients, attendance rates, and increased smoking abstinence rates.
Even a cute tabletop socially assistive robot given to COPD patients that increases inhaler medication adherence by 20 points doesn’t seem to cut hospital readmissions. The iRobot Yujin Robot helping patients manage their condition through medication and exercise adherence lets patients admit that they are feeling unwell so that a clinician could check on them either through text or phone and if needed to see their regular doctor. The University of Auckland researchers recommended improvements to the robot, integration to the healthcare system, and comparisons to other remote monitoring technology. JMIR (18 Feb), Mobihealthnews.
As Dr. Robert Wachter of UCSF put it to the KQED reporter, we’re somewhere on the Gartner Hype Cycle past the Peak of Inflated Expectations. But this uneven picture may actually be progress. Perhaps we are moving somewhere between the Slough (ok, Trough) of Disillusionment and the Slope of Enlightment, which is why it’s so confusing?