Abstract

Citation: Torrey T. Health 2.0: what works for users. J Participat Med. 2010 Aug 16; 2:e2.
Published: August 16, 2009.
Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

In my heart of hearts, I am a geek.

Few know about my closet geekitude. Most people know me as a “professional patient,” someone who works to improve communications between patients and their doctors, or helps patients participate in their own medical decision-making. However, I took my first Fortran class in 1972. I had an email address in 1988. My first career found me teaching in a classroom. My next career spanned two decades as a marketer, the last 10 years in web marketing and development.

I share this background with you to provide a better sense of why I don’t always see Health 2.0 demonstrations quite the same way as my fellow geeks. My observations are usually quite different from theirs, and I believe that difference can mean the success or failure of the technology solutions they have developed for us patients and providers.

The difference is best illustrated by two approaches to product development:

Approach #1: “Hey! I’ve got an idea! Let’s create an application that will show people how they can _______.”

At a previous Health 2.0 conference, an application that could help diabetes patients track their blood glucose levels was demonstrated. Several times each day, after testing their blood, users could input their results to their smartphones in order to monitor their A1C, an average blood sugar measurement that helps determine how well their diabetes is being managed over time.

But I wonder – before they created this app, did the developers ever talk to diabetes patients? I know several, typical, long-time diabetes patients who are diligent about regular testing, and take action based on those current results. But none of them want diabetes to play any more of a role in their lives than it has to. They would be happiest if they could just ignore their diabetes all together. They are not about to sacrifice one ounce of effort for their diabetes that isn’t necessary.

So what incentive is there for them to adopt this technology? None. And there is little likelihood they will. This app seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Approach #2: “Hey! My friend who was diagnosed with _____ is having trouble doing _____. Let’s develop a solution for him.”

At Health 2.0 Washington 2010, an app called ScanAvert was demonstrated. ScanAvert was developed for people with food allergies or other specific nutritional needs. Users begin by inputting their food requirements to the ScanAvert website. Then when they go shopping, they can snap a photo of the barcode on a food package with their smartphone, and the app will tell them what they need to know about that food in relation to the allergies or needs they have outlined at the website.

If my child has a peanut allergy, or I need gluten-free or low fat foods, then this is genius! There is a clear need for this type of application. It’s evident ScanAvert’s developers listened to people first.

Billions of dollars are being spent on health technology development. But not all those billions are being spent on solving actual problems. And that’s the difference. Development for development’s sake, the “Hey! Let’s try this!” approach, is a waste of money and the valuable time of some of our best problem-solving minds.

I challenge my fellow geeks to reorient themselves to finding technology solutions for real problems by talking to and observing the challenges we patients and providers have. Develop your solutions with us, not for us.

Technology for technology’s sake won’t be successful. Collaborative problem definition first, then a solution to follow–that’s what will improve our health and medical outcomes.