This article makes a good comment – doctors are not the best to help patients with chronic health problems. Doctors offer treatment, which does not solve the underlying issue to do with those problems: it is the patient who needs to solve the problem. And the problems themselves are often developed over a lifetime of habits that stack up to trigger the symptoms. Thus treating the symptoms merely shifts the problem without addressing the cause. This is where behavioural science and coaching provide real value in treatment plans.
But more work is needed to make data from wearables both preventative and personalised in a way that motivates people to proactively manage their lifestyle. And key to that is the measurement and correlation of data sets to optimal health. So how do we get enough data about what is optimal health to be able to guide people effectively to what that is – when by its very nature, optimal health is both individual and personal? Isn’t that the sort of service we should be building?
Seems to me whether it is digital or wearable or high-tech, it makes very little difference. People who are open to health and wellness will engage and participate and “just do it,” and those who aren’t, won’t. This problem has plagued all kinds of wellness programs. Offer cheap gym memberships and you are reaching those who are inclined to exercise anyway.
Thanks for the article. It is clear that wearable can only be reliable solutions if used sustainably. And I believe that this is a fundamental issue, yet to be solved by the main wearable manufacturers and leading vendors.
As a wearable technology professional, I have some ideas how we can get long term engagement going. At the end of the day, it’s all about knowing the person.
If we know ” well ” the person behind the wearable, then and ‘ only ‘ then we can bespoke engagement content for that individual.
Comments are closed.