Blood Informatics: Negotiating the Regulation and Usership of Personal Devices for Medical Care and Recreational Self-monitoring

  • Alex Faulkner
Part of the Health, Technology and Society book series (HTE)


This chapter approaches PMDs firstly by outlining the uncertain environment of existing and emerging regulatory regimes, and secondly by examining actual and discursive local processes of adoption of exemplar devices both within and outside organised healthcare systems, given the regulatory context of the UK and the European Union. Two case studies are presented of portable devices that measure and/or monitor blood flow or blood pressure, one within medical jurisdiction, the other more or less ‘recreational’. The European Union regulatory frameworks are shown to be struggling with the challenge of ‘mHealth’ innovations. The concept of ‘technology identity’ is used to highlight key features of the devices in their regulatory context that shape the way in which potential users understand, evaluate, and might actually use these devices.



A version of parts of this chapter was presented at the Wellcome Trust/University of Cambridge Symposium ‘Theorising Personal Medical Devices: New Perspectives’, Cambridge, UK, 18–19 September 2014. I am grateful for comments from participants.


  1. Barry, A. (2006). Technological zones. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brownsword, R. (2008). So what does the world need now: Reflections on regulating technologies. In R. Brownsword & K. Yeung (Eds.), Regulating technologies: Legal futures, regulatory frames, and technological fixes (pp. 23–48). Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Chang, L., Qing, Z., Holroyd, K., & Seng, E. (2011). Status and trends of mobile-health applications for iOS devices: A developer’s perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(11), 2022–2033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Delanty, D., & Rumford, C. (2005). Rethinking Europe: Social theory and the implications of Europeanization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. EC DG Enterprise. (2001). Guidelines for the classification of medical devices. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  6. EPHA. (2014). (Response to) Public consultation on the Commission’s Green Paper on mobile health. Available online at: 4-contributionsfromorganisationsDtoE.pdf. Accessed December 2015.
  7. EUCOMED. (2014). (Response to) Public consultation on the Commission’s Green Paper on mobile health. Available online at: 4-contributionsfromorganisationsDtoE.pdf. Accessed December 2015.
  8. European Commission. (2015a). Public consultation on the Green Paper on mobile Health. Available online at: Accessed January 2016.
  9. European Commission. (2015b). mHealth in Europe: Preparing the ground – consultation results published. Available online at Accessed January 2016.
  10. Faulkner, A. (2009a). Medical technology into healthcare and society: A sociology of devices, innovation and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Faulkner, A. (2009b). Regulatory policy as innovation: Constructing rules of engagement of a technological zone for tissue engineering in the European Union. Research Policy, 38(4), 637–646.Google Scholar
  12. Faulkner, A. (2016). Opening the gateways to market and adoption of regenerative medicine? The UK case in context. Regenerative Medicine, 11(3), 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleck, J. (1994). Learning by trying—The implementation of configurational technology. Research Policy, 23(6), 637–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, N. (2015). Personal health technologies, micropolitics and resistance: A new materialist analysis. Health. Online:
  15. Hattersley, L. (2015). How your iPhone can monitor your health. Available online at: Accessed January 2016.
  16. Heneghan, C., Alonso-Coello, P., Garcia-Alamino, J., Perera, R., Meats, E., & Glasziou, P. (2006). Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet, 367, 404–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technology, texts, and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jahns, R.-G. (2014). 8 drivers and barriers that will shape the mhealth app market in the next 5 years. Available online at: Accessed January 2016.
  19. Kelly, S. (2014). Apple health has a long way to go, but it’s far from hopeless. Available online at: Accessed January 2016.
  20. Logan, A. (2013). Transforming hypertension management using mobile health technology for telemonitoring and self-care support. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 29(5), 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Logan, A. G., McIsaac, W. J., Tisler, M., Irvine, J., Saunders, A., Dunai, A., et al. (2007). Mobile phone-based remote patient monitoring system for management of hypertension in diabetic patients. American Journal of Hypertension, 20(9), 942–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lupton, D. (2013). Quantifying the body: Monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Critical Public Health, 23(4), 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lupton, D. (2014a). Critical perspectives on digital health technologies. Sociology Compass, 8(12), 1344–1359.Google Scholar
  24. Lupton, D. (2014b). Self-tracking modes: Reflexive self-monitoring and data practices. In: Imminent citizenships: Personhood and identity politics in the informatic age workshop. Canberra, ACT, Australia, 27 August.Google Scholar
  25. Lupton, D. (2014c). Apps as artefacts: Towards a critical perspective on mobile health and medical apps. Societies, 4(4), 606–622.Google Scholar
  26. May, C., Harrison, R., MacFarlane, A., Williams, T., Mair, F., & Wallace, P. (2003). Why do telemedicine systems fail to normalize as stable models of service delivery? Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 9, S25–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McMillan, R. (2014, July 29). These medical apps have doctors and the FDA worried. Wired. Available online at: Accessed January 2016.
  28. NICE. (2014). NICE recommends self-monitoring tests for people on long-term anticoagulation therapy. Available online at: Accessed September 2014.
  29. Quinn, P., Habbig, A.-K., Mantovani, E., & De Hert, P. (2013). The data protection and medical device frameworks—Obstacles to the deployment of mHealth across Europe? European Journal of Health Law, 185–204.Google Scholar
  30. Snow, C. P. (1961). Science and government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Steinhubl, S., Muse, E., & Topol, E. (2013). Can mobile health technologies transform health care? JAMA, 310(22), 2395–2396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stokes, E. (2012). Nanotechnology and the products of inherited regulation. In A. Faulkner & C. Lawless (Eds.), Material Worlds: Intersections of law, science, technology and society, Special Issue. Journal of Law and Society, 39(1), 93–112.Google Scholar
  33. Timmermans, S., & Berg, M. (2003). The practice of medical technology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25(3), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tomlin, Z., Peirce, S., Elwyn, G. & Faulkner, A. (2013). The adoption space of early-emerging technologies: innovation, evaluation, gatekeeping. Final research report to Department of Health/NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation Technology Adoption research programme, HMSO. p. 189. Available online at: Accessed November 2016.
  35. Ulucanlar, S., Peirce, S., Elwyn, G., & Faulkner, A. (2013). Technology identity: The role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices. Social Science and Medicine, 98, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. World Health Organisation. (2014). mHealth—New horizons for health through mobile technologies. Global Observatory for eHealth, Vol. 3, p. 6. Geneva, WHO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Global Health PolicyUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations