Advertisement

Watching for Disease: the Changing Paradigm of Disease Screening in the Age of Consumer Health Devices

  • Anubodh S. Varshney
  • Christopher Madias
  • Rahul Kakkar
  • David T. MartinEmail author
Perspective

Abstract

There has been a recent proliferation of consumer health devices (CHDs) that enable user-initiated screening for a variety of diseases. These devices represent a paradigm shift in the deployment of disease screening, a process that has historically been led by clinicians following the guidance of professional bodies. The detection of AF via CHDs is a contemporary example of this phenomenon and highlights several important implications of the shift of disease screening from clinicians to CHD users. These include responsibility for patient data and outcomes, healthcare costs and access, and an evolution of the patient-provider relationship. However, as CHD technologies mature and become more affordable, they have the potential to detect actionable subclinical disease and improve health. Rather than allow CHDs to enter the marketplace organically with the potential for unintended negative consequences, it is critical that clinical, research, and industry communities proactively collaborate and establish best practices for their use.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest. David T. Martin: consulting fees from Biotronik, Inc. and Abbott, Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    Piwek L, Ellis DA, Andrews S, Joinson A. The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers. PLOS Med. 2016;13(2):e1001953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharma A, Harrington RA, McClellan MB, Turakhia MP, Eapen ZJ, Steinhubl S, et al. Using digital health technology to better generate evidence and deliver evidence-based care. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(23):2680–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Bouvard V, Bianchini F, et al. Breast-cancer screening--viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(24):2353–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    US Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, Bibbins-Domingo K, Caughey AB, et al. Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;319(18):1901–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    US Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, Barry MJ, Davidson KW, et al. Screening for Ovarian Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;319(6):588–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the united states and other high-income countries. JAMA. 2018;319(10):1024–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Lond Engl. 2018;392(10159):1736–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ACC.19 Presentation Slides | Apple Heart Study - American College of Cardiology [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jun 5]. Available from: https://www.acc.org/education-and-meetings/image-and-slide-gallery/media-detail?id=a8c5540539d34a00bdd50cd72b5d2691
  9. 9.
    Benartzi S, Beshears J, Milkman KL, Sunstein CR, Thaler RH, Shankar M, et al. Should Governments Invest More in Nudging? Psychol Sci. 2017;28(8):1041–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Tufts Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations