Promoting inequality? Self-monitoring applications and the problem of social justice

[Mobile health technologies, social justice and population-based vulnerabilities : A public health ethics perspective on mHealth using the example of type 2 diabetes mellitus]

Mobile health technologies (mHealth) promote the trend towards personal responsibility and self-management. By using the example of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the article aims to deepen the discussion on mHealth, personal responsibility and justice-which has so far only been rudimentary-from a public health ethical perspective. It shows that in the field of T2DM, mHealth can on the one hand improve social health justice, but on the other hand can also exacerbate social health injustices. From a justice-focused, public health ethical perspective on T2DM mHealth, it is necessary to better understand whether and how vulnerable population groups are considered in mHealth development and implementation, how these groups experience the use of the technology, what social-epidemiological impacts the increasing use of mHealth can have, which health inequalities in the area of T2DM are unfair, to what extent personal responsibility should be placed in the hands of the users, and where the limits of personal responsibility lie. Considering social diversity and the social determinants of health is an ongoing process and must permeate all phases of mHealth development and implementation.

'Personal Health Surveillance': The Use of mHealth in Healthcare Responsibilisation

There is an ongoing increase in the use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies that patients can use to monitor health-related outcomes and behaviours. While the dominant narrative around mHealth focuses on patient empowerment, there is potential for mHealth to fit into a growing push for patients to take personal responsibility for their health. I call the first of these uses 'medical monitoring', and the second 'personal health surveillance'. After outlining two problems which the use of mHealth might seem to enable us to overcome-fairness of burdens and reliance on self-reporting-I note that these problems would only really be solved by unacceptably comprehensive forms of personal health surveillance which applies to all of us at all times. A more plausible model is to use personal health surveillance as a last resort for patients who would otherwise independently qualify for responsibility-based penalties. However, I note that there are still a number of ethical and practical problems that such a policy would need to overcome. The prospects of mHealth enabling a fair, genuinely cost-saving policy of patient responsibility are slim.

Knowledge and practice of home blood pressure monitoring 6 months after the risk and assessment management programme: does health literacy matter?

Background

Little is known whether patients with lower health literacy could retain the practice and knowledge of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) after an educational programme.

Methods

A cluster randomised controlled trial in five primary care clinics recruited participants with uncontrolled hypertension. Clinics were randomised either to a HBPM group education (Risk Assessment and Management Programme (RAMP-group), or individual counselling of self-management (RAMP-individual). Health literacy was assessed by the Chinese Health Literacy Scale for Chronic Care. Practice and knowledge of HBPM were surveyed by a 10-item HBPM knowledge checklist and patient record review 6 months after interventions. Predictors for regular HBPM and good HBPM knowledge were assessed by multivariate logistic regression models.

Results

287 participants (RAMP-group: 151; RAMP-individual: 136) were follow-up for 6 months. 272 participants completed the knowledge questionnaires (response rate 94.8%). 67.8% of the participants performed HBPM regularly, and there was no statistical difference between both interventions. Age more than 65 (adjusted odds ratios (aOR) 2.58, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.86, p=0.003), not working (aOR 2.34, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.97, p=0.027)and adequate health literacy (aOR 2.25, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.95, p=0.005) predicted regular HBPM. Participants in RAMP-group demonstrated a significant lower body weight than those in RAMP-individual (−0.3±2.0 kg vs +0.7 ±1.7 kg, p<0.001).The RAMP-group participants were eight times more likely to have full HBPM knowledge score than the RAMP-individual participants (aOR 8.46, 95% CI 4.68 to 15.28, p<0.001).

Conclusion

Patients could retain HBPM knowledge better after RAMP-group than RAMP-individual. Older, retired and patients with adequate health literacy were more likely to continue weekly HBPM 6 months after education.

Trial registration number

NCT02551393.