Last week I attended the Fourth World Congress on Social Media and Web 2.0 in Health, Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, also known as Medicine 2.0. This conference, held at the Stanford University School of Medicine, brought together some of the world's leading experts in using social media and mobile applications to create new ways of delivering health.
How can we use the Internet and social media to improve health as well as patient-caregiver relationships? I came away with loads of ideas to try out with mobile applications like A-CHESS that NIATx is developing.
One recurring theme throughout the conference was how much patients, no matter what their health condition, benefit from networking with others. Social media tools like Facebook and Twitter have become new tools for building the social support patients need. Some other new applications that you'll be hearing about include Google + and www.patientslikeme.com.
This innovative conference also introduced me to some new technologies that transformed my conference experience. We hope to give you a sample of the same at the 2012 NIATx Summit/SAAS National Conference - next year, your Summit conference badge might also be the conference program!
It is becoming increasingly evident that our prediction is true: wireless devices (smart phones, tablets and sensors) will play a critical, even revolutionary role in health care in the future. We look forward to working with you to collaboratively set the future for our field by embracing these technologies.
Dave is very excited about the developing technologies that may transform the delivery of healthcare including behavioral health as am I. Yet, I experience a hesitancy if not a push back against these innovations among behavioral health providers and clinicians. Several factors must be considered if behavioral health will embrace, adopt and adapt the emerging technologies.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I often hear concern from clinicians regarding their careers. Will technology replace them as the automation has done in manufacturing? The reality is that we face a severe labor shortage in addiction and mental health treatment. Just look at the graying hair at any conference we attend. The administrative and clinical leaders who joined the field in the 1960s and 1970s are retiring and qualified replacements are difficult to recruit. Thus, we need to find new ways to provide our services. Highly skilled clinicians and other leaders will be needed to develop the content and delivery of the new technologies. The goal is to engage and reach more people in need of services. Non-degreed staff members such as peers may also play an important role in supporting recovery through these new technologies.
A second concern is that the therapeutic relationship is crucial and cannot be replaced by services using various technologies. Yes, relationship in very important but studies are showing avatar counselors can create a therapeutic alliance. Could such an alliance also be built with less face-to-face time than the current model of weekly individual or group sessions? Could we abandon the Freudian model of the 50 minute ?hour? after 100+ years?
As previously mentioned, a major challenge is attracting new talent to our field. Will new technologies allow us to provide treatment and recovery support more efficiently? New payment methodologies such a case rates and episode of care payments are likely to replace fee-for-service systems that incent increased days and hours of treatment. I believe such changes could both increase access and result in increased salaries as a result of savings in the amount of direct staff time needed to deliver effective treatments. A win/win?
Finally, I believe he issue is not whether the adoption of new technologies wll change the behavioral health delivery system, but how fast. And, I believe the speed will amaze me.
A former administrator for whom I worked had a great saying:
?There are 3 types of organizations:
1. Those who make things happen.
2. Those who watch things happen.
3. Those who say what happened??
I predict only the first category will survive within the next few years.
Posted By Mike Boyle
Dr. Gustafson, your post really makes the possibilities sound exciting.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any sense of how these technologies may foster peer-to-peer support for those in recovery? My sense is that treatment agencies and policymakers have been reluctant to foster these sorts of networks on a formal basis (probably because of liability concerns). But I may be wrong -- can you shed any light on that?
Of course, as a representative of Reclaiming Futures, I'm particularly interested in seeing how these tools can be adapted for use in adolescent treatment (where liability and confidentiality concerns are even greater). Do you see any promising opportunities there?
I am in any case eager to see what results from your time at the conference.
________________________
Benjamin Chambers
New Media Editor
Prichard Communications
620 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 702
Portland, Oregon 97204
w. www.prichardcommunications.com
Posted By benjamin.chambers@reclaimingfutures.org
I am sorry to take so long to get back to you. The peer to peer support issue is really important because our research suggests they are the most important part of an "ehealth" intervention. Peers can share tips about how to deal with issues, they can support one another emotionally as well. So people use ACHESS support services much more than anything else.
ReplyDeleteThere are several ways to foster that support. One is the bulletin board kind of thing where you leave a message and I respond later on (as we are doing now). Another is sort of a live chat thing where you are on and the phone tells me you are available to we start writing to each other. That approach tends to be one to one while the bulletin board discussions are open to any and all. Another is mobile social support where the phone knows your location and it searches for other peers who are right now near by. Then it makes the connection between you two or you all.
We have not done a lot with adolescents in addiction (although we are working with drug courts). We did do a trial with inner city youth with asthma. Wow, was that an experience!!!!! Kids put up "amazing" pictures of themselves (e.g."genital boy"), another ran away from home to a person they met on the web, etc. Developing systems for adults and kids are very different. We are working with folks from Chestnut and also from Yale on tests but the test have not started. I don't want to discourage you about kids. We just need to approach it differently.
Posted By dhgustaf
This is Dave again. I just read the first post by Mike Boyle, I think. His very insightful comments reinforce the ones made by Ben. Things will change and the key issue is how to change in a way that makes a positive difference (and avoids mistakes). Lets keep this blog going so we can share ideas that work and mistakes to avoid.
ReplyDeletein that line and related to adolescents, I asked Fiona what was the biggest mistake we made in the asthma study. See my previous comment. I could not get her to shut up! We made so many.
One was we had the potential to use voice input instead of typing. Now I know all kids love to text and don't talk, right? Well, not these kids. They kept saying why do we have to type?
Second was that we thought it would be more acceptable to the users if we embedded the asthma program into other things they like to do. So we tried to make it a more general site that included access to Packer scores, etc. Wrong! We should have been much more direct and forceful about asthma.
So we are in a new world and we don't know what we are doing. But we gotta try. What is that they say a bout the bleeding edge?
Posted By dhgustaf
I enjoyed reading your articles. This is truly a great read for me. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles.
ReplyDelete