Comments on: Self-tracking tech revolution? Not so fast…

By: Johann

Johann — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:16:44 +0000

I use several self-tracking apps like for financial and health. Other than that, the apps that I download are mostly for entertainment purposes.

LikeLike

By: Lee Hale

Lee Hale — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:09:11 +0000

I do track a number of health indicators (weight, blood pressure) but I think there’s a difference between HEALTH indicators and what industry is calling self-tracking health apps (many of which are actually fitness apps). The “worried well” as you would call them.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:23:55 +0000

Thanks Andrew. For the non-sick, tracking health indicators may not seem a burden at all – but for many of us Real Live Patients, it can loom as yet one more thing on our To Do lists.

LikeLike

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:45:59 +0000

Good and helpful post as always.

I think if we look at technology as complementary to the doctor-patient relationship, and specific apps being designed to reduce ‘the burden of treatment’, then we may make progress for the vast majority of people, not just the data obsessed. Most apps increase the ‘burden’, very few are automatic enough to reduce it.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:40:40 +0000

You’re not alone, Mark. There are those ‘early adopters’ in the Quantified Self movement who are happy to embrace every possible emerging technology for health tracking – but that still leaves four out of five reported self-trackers who don’t!

LikeLike

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:32:04 +0000

Completely agree. People want to connect with a person; not a “device”. It is all about relationships, and let’s remember that technology is being so constrained by “privacy” and “information security” that it will likely render itself obsolete.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:09:11 +0000

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment here, Fard. Your research is important!
regards,
C.

LikeLike

By: Fard Johnmar

Fard Johnmar — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:01:07 +0000

I just wanted to drop you a quick line to say thanks for highlighting our research on your blog today.

It’s always gratifying to know that people are not only reading our data, but using it.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:45:23 +0000

Good point. I’ve been alarmed lately by studies showing the shocking unreliability even in experienced physicians when interpreting current high-quality diagnostic tests (most famously the Michigan State University study on radiologists, 60% of whom failed to notice a missing clavicle in the chest x-rays they were interpreting!) Now marry that “normal” challenge in medical accuracy with the lesser technology of a cell phone photo. Not quite ready for prime time, despite the hype.

LikeLike

By: anet37

anet37 — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:38:16 +0000

When Dr Free says this this in your article: “the use of mobile technology-based photos for diagnosis resulted in incorrect diagnoses compared with face-to-face-diagnosis”, the first thing that comes to mind for many of us is the “but you don’t look sick” phrase. I think many diseases will not lend themselves to mobile interventions.

They may have to start saying “But you don’t look dead”

@anetto

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:03:44 +0000

Thank you Kate. I like that excerpt too, because it captures beautifully what many in the tech/design sector fail to grasp – as quoted in a previous post on this: ““Fundamentally, sick people … relish the thought of NOT obsessing about our health, to take it for granted like we do, say, gravity.”

LikeLike