healthcare technology

As the number of self-tracking health and fitness tools available to consumers continues to climb, a persistent question has been whether the data they collect might be useful to health researchers. Along with that: Are people who self-track comfortable sharing their data with researchers?

A new, must-read report from San Diego’s California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology (Calit2), funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, explores these and other questions.

Based on a survey with hundreds of self-trackers, a majority — 57 percent — said one critical assurance they would need before agreeing to make their self-tracked, personal health data available to researchers was that their privacy would be protected. More than 90 percent also said it was important that their data remained anonymous. Respondents said they’d be more comfortable sharing data if they knew it was only going to be used for “public good” research.

One open-ended survey that the report’s researchers posed to self-trackers found that 13 percent of respondents specifically mentioned an aversion to commercial or profit-making use of their data, according to the report. One respondent wrote: “It depends who gets it. Research using these data will be instrumental in the future of personal predictive services, but also for that reason are likely to be exploited by marketers and the politically short-sighted. Thus I would like transparency for who has access to my data.”

Currently there is an explosion of interest in personal digital devices and apps that track an individual’s health data primarily for their own consumption and interpretation.

Every week new products are launched that aim to measure something new or bring together a set of measures into a more useful package (e.g. Athos digital clothing that tracks muscle recruitment, heart rate etc). Around these devices is a growing community of early adopters who are testing, experimenting and sharing their experiences.

These self-confessed self-tracking geeks refer to this new domain as the Quantified Self

Some examples of the types of data being tracked by these Quantified Selfers that are of particular interest to PT include:

1. Activity levels (exercise) – devices generally the record number of steps taken but also can record elevation gained (number of stairs and floors) and even estimate a measure of calories burned. Example devices include the Fitbit, Nike Fuelband, Jawbone Up,Striiv and Withings Pulse.
2. Body health measures – devices that track a wide variety of health measures such as heart rate, skin temperature, perspiration (e.g. the Basis watch), blood pressure (e.g. the iHealth blood pressure monitor), blood oxygen saturation (e.g. the iHealth Pulse Oximeter), heart ECG trace (e.g. Alivecor), blood sugar (e.g. iBGStar) etc.

So why should physical therapists and physiotherapists be paying attention to this trend?

- See more at: http://www.physiospot.com/opinion/the-quantified-self-and-the-implications-for-physical-therapy-physiotherapy/

“What are you tracking?” This is the conversation at Quantified Self (QS) meetups. The Quantified Self movement celebrates “self-knowledge through numbers.”

In our current love affair with QS, we tend to focus on data and the mind. Technology helps manage and mediate that relationship. The body is in there somewhere, too, as a sort of “slave” to the mind and the technology.

From blood sugar to pulse, from keystrokes to time spent online, the assumption is that there’s power in numbers. We also assume that what can be measured is what matters, and if behaviors can be measured, they can be improved. The entire Quantified Self movement has grown around the belief that numbers give us an insight into our bodies that our emotions don’t have.

However, in our relationship with technology, we easily fall out of touch with our bodies. We know how many screen hours we’ve logged, but we are less likely to be able to answer the question: “How do you feel?”

In our obsession with numbers and tracking, are we moving further and further away from the wisdom of the body? Our feelings? Our senses?

Most animals rely entirely on their senses and the wisdom of the body to inform their behavior. Does our focus on numbers, measuring, and tracking move us further and further away from cultivating a real connection to our “Essential Self”?

What if we could start a movement that addresses our sense of self and brings us into a more harmonious relationship with our bodymind and with technology? This new movement would co-exist alongside the Quantified Self movement. I’d like to call this movement the Essential Selfmovement.

This isn’t an either/or proposition — QS and Essential Self movements both offer value. The question is: in what contexts are the numbers more helpful than our senses? In what constructive ways can technology speak more directly to our bodymind and our senses?