The role of technology has gained credible use in health promotion, disease prevention and health management. Technology has been incorporated in healthcare through methods such as telemedicine, telecare and telemonitoring. The use of technology and e-health education programs is currently being used in the prevention and management of cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and other lifestyle-related chronic diseases (NCCDPHP 2019). Health practitioners have tried to incorporate health education programs into technological products such as mobile phone applications and web-based programs (Healthy2020 2019). The technology used in the prevention and management of lifestyle-related conditions is aimed at ensuring people with the conditions follow their medication prescriptions and exercise routines, get instant medical care and can be monitored in various capacities (Ortega-Navas 2017). People at risk of getting lifestyle-related conditions receive educational programs and information through technology so that they know appropriate measures to take to avoid such diseases (Oldenburg et al. 2015).
This executive brief targets a diverse number of people involved in the healthcare profession. Healthcare providers will benefit by improving acceptance percentages for health professionals who are willing to incorporate the use of technology and technological programs in their education campaigns. It will be useful to the Chief Nursing Administrator and the Chief Nursing Officer; both of whom understand the effect of poor lifestyle choices on the healthcare system. Therefore, their policy and guideline contributions may aid in ensuring that healthcare institutions that they work for have health education programs meant to alleviate the burden. The brief would also be useful to university and college students; especially those in the fields of information technology, computer systems management, computer science, software engineering, nursing and other health-related professions. Computer-related professions can creative and innovatively help disseminate health education programs on healthy life choices to the masses through gaming applications and programs. The students, in cooperation with healthcare providers who contribute content, can help reach a wider scale of the population who are at risk. Community agencies and local groups can also be targeted to help create awareness at the grassroots level regarding the existence and usefulness of the programs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Studies conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of technology-based education programs aimed at preventing and promoting management of lifestyle-related diseases show positive results. Most studies undertaken in this field are targeted toward diseases such as osteoarthritis, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type II diabetes, asthma and addiction (Oldenburg et al. 2015). Technology-based education programs often target these diseases as a combination of any of their portions. Allet et al. (2010) found that 1397 individual subjects between 1990 and 2009 undertaking a wearable monitoring system study resulted in 60% of the cohort showing signs of positive improvement. Verhoeven et al. (2010) studied the effect of synchronous and asynchronous teleconsultation on 91 US-based subjects between 2002 and 2009. The authors found that 49 patients showed positive clinical improvements, 43 subjects showed high reliance on the technology and 42 subjects reported excellent self-care. Stephens and Allen (2013) conducted a study to determine mobile phone interventions in increasing physical activity and reducing weight. The study found that 71% of participants (N=927) studied between 2006 and 2009 reported significant results in results such as reduced circumference, improved dietary and nutrition behavior, reduced fat mass reduced BMI and weight. Most studies have assessed the use of smartphones, personal computers and telecommunication as technological interventions in health promotion. Current best practices include the use of chatrooms (virtual text-based communication programs), gaming applications and smartwatches for telemonitoring and telecommunication in the provision of high-quality healthcare.
Technology can be used to promote health in various ways. Technology can be used as an educational tool to spread awareness and information on lifestyle-related conditions, guidelines on recommended dietary and nutrition practices, exercises and other lifestyle choices (Oldenburg et al. 2015). Technological options in this field include the use of mass media (television and radio), social media (Facebook, Twitter and Weibo), print media (magazines and newspapers), e-books and e-journals. Gaming applications such as virtual boxing matches (Thrill of the Fight, BoxVR) and activity-based games like Hot Squat and Sudoku are used to provide physical and mental health exercises to individuals.
Although technology has been hailed as an innovative way of disseminating information regarding health promotion activities, there are specific barriers to its use. Technology applications and penetration have not been uniform based on recent studies. Oldenburg et al. (2015) noted that there is a great bias on technology usage based on the level of income, region, race and ethnicity, level of literacy and awareness of technology programs. In some cases, cases of poor user perception, inadequate definitions of reach, automation of data and low retention of study participants have raised credibility issues (Oldenburg et al. 2015). Currently, the use of technology in the prevention and management of lifestyle-related health conditions has been positively correlated with improved clinical results. In some instances where technology absorption is significantly low, study results are unreliable and success rates are low.
The main advantage of using technology in health promotion is its cost-effectiveness. Specifically, the use of social media is currently the cheapest and most effective way of disseminating information targeting a large number of people. Since the target population for the technology intervention methods are diverse and widely distributed in geographic terms, suing social media and web-based applications to disseminate information on recommended nutritional behavior is highly cost-effective. Institutions will save money on kits, transport, accommodation, salaries and other emoluments spent on health practitioners for the dissemination of information (Healthy2020 2019). Other costs saved include time value (technology targets a high number of people at the same time allowing practitioners to work on other duties), workload (practitioners become free to deal with patients) and a reduced burden on the healthcare system owing to the effectiveness of technological methods (Oldenburg et al. 2015). Stakeholders may be engaged at different levels. Computer programmers and software engineers will be tasked with creating applications and programs for use; information technology experts will create awareness on the programs and facilitate user-interaction; health practitioners will contribute content and material for use, and executives and management boards will provide funding.
Technological approaches to health interventions can be explained by the Diffusion of Innovation theory. Technology use in telemedicine and telecare, including e-health practices, has not yet gained credible traction among the population. Ideally, the idea to use technology originated from innovators in healthcare, who partnered with programmers to create technology-based interventions. The developed world represents the early adopters of this technology at the moment. This is based on high literacy levels and technology penetration caused by higher incomes, in the population. The early majority are represented by high and middle-income families in high-income and middle-income families who use social media and own digital computer devices. The late majority includes most countries in the developing world while laggards represent specific groups in all regions who are bound by religious, cultural or cultic beliefs; hence a high reluctance to adopt technology-based interventions. The effectiveness of technology-based applications can be evaluated by examining statistics on registered, active and frequent users on application-based technological interventions. Non-statistical measurements can be taken through monitoring feedback through comments and chats. Other evaluation methods include conducting studies using survey techniques and questionnaires to determine the level of penetration of the proposed technological methods in disease prevention and management within the target population.
References
Allet, L., Knols, R. H., Shirato, K. & de Bruin, E. D. (2010). Wearable systems for monitoring mobility-related activities in chronic disease: A systematic review. Sensors, 10 (1): 9026-9052.
NCCDPHP. (2019). How we prevent chronic diseases and promote health. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/center/nccdphp/how.htm on 15th August 2019.
Healthy 2020. (2019). Nutrition, physical activity, and obesity. Retrieved from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/leading-health-indicators/2020-lhi-topics/Nutrition-Physical-Activity-and-Obesity/data#NWS-9 on 15 th Aug 2019.
Oldenburg, B. Taylor, C. B., O’Neil, A., Cocker, F. & Cameron, L. D. (2015). Using new technologies to improve the prevention and management of chronic conditions in populations. Annual Review of Public Health, 36 (1): 483-505.
Ortega-Navas, M. C. (2017). The use of new technologies as a tool for the promotion of health education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237 (17): 23-29.
Stephens, J. & Allen, J. (2013). Mobile phone interventions to increase physical activity and reduce weight: a systematic review. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing , 28 (1): 320–329.
Verhoeven F, Tanja-Dijkstra K, Nijland N, Eysenbach G, van Gemert-Pijnen L. 2010. Asynchronous and synchronous teleconsultation for diabetes care: A systematic literature review. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology , 4 (1): 666–864.
