by Ryan Wasson
mHealth refers to the idea that mobile technology can revolutionize and improve healthcare. Its impact can be seen in the thousands of apps available to people in the U.S. But this impact isn’t seen globally, and its existence may be in jeopardy.
I recently read a scholarly article published by Arul Chib, an Assistant Professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. In his piece, he notes that while the concept of mHealth is positive overall, the concept in practice, especially in developing countries as of now holds some theoretical, methodological, and sustainability issues (Chib, 2013).
Chib first begins by outlining some of the overarching benefits mHealth provides in its effectiveness. He refers to accessibility, communication, education, training, data collection, and dissemination of information as main points that are all benefited from the concept of mHealth (Chib, 2013). In terms of mobile technology, I believe these, and many more benefits can be had from mHealth should the technology evolve in such a way in these developing countries. The ability to have a doctor’s appointment while taking a thirty-minute drive to a Costco or learning new information about COVID-19 through a few taps and selections of mHealth applications online while on-the-go can certainly be beneficial and further enhance our mobility in our everyday life. I myself, don’t find myself using mHealth apps on a daily basis. To be honest with you, I didn’t even know mHealth was a thing before reading this article. I’m more used to setting up doctor’s appointments at home or having any kind of follow-up appointment scheduled on-site. Regardless, within developing countries, improvements here can be a substantial social capital booster for anyone that has a mobile device.
While Chib’s study focuses specifically on community healthcare workers in developing countries, the main takeaway is that most cases of adoption of mHealth in developing countries is controlled by social and psychological constraints. Some of this had to do with power structures in certain countries as well as the resources available to these groups (Chib, 2013). In the realm of mobile technology, this can certainly hinder the mobility of users with outside constraints preventing individuals to use mHealth to its fullest capabilities. In my experience, there has been little limitation, having grown up in the U.S., when it has come to using any sort of mHealth app. I have a variety to choose from, but I don’t find too many to be necessary at this stage in my life.
Methodology wise, Chib simply believes that both qualitative and quantitative research methods need to be researched (Chib, 2013). As someone that’s taking a sociology class as a junior in college, I can’t disagree, both realistically, and scientifically.
Chib’s final category of critique involves mHealth’s scope and scale in regard to sustainability. According to Chib, “mHealth needs to be perceived not as a magic bullet revolutionizing healthcare on its own, but instead as yet one more facilitator of healthcare improvements, to be applied in conjunction with other technological platforms” (Chib, 2013). He also notes that power shifts and the resulting limitations of mHealth in those areas warrant studying as well (Chib, 2013). In terms of mobile technology, having mHealth available on as many mobile platforms as possible will easily provide the best mobility at one’s disposal for people in developing countries. While I don’t use actively use these platforms much, I feel that this same message of mHealth is sometimes marketed here in America as what Chib describes, “a magic bullet revolutionizing healthcare,” (Chib, 2013). Whether or not that’s true I’ll leave up to the reader.
Comments