3.8 Article

COVID-19's Impact on Digital Health Adoption: The Growing Gap Between a Technological and a Cultural Transformation

期刊

JMIR HUMAN FACTORS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
DOI: 10.2196/38926

关键词

COVID-19; digital health; future; cultural transformation; medical information; technology adoption; health care; physician burnout; burnout

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health care in the 21st century is undergoing significant changes with the rise of chronic conditions and the advancement of digital health. The adoption of digital health technologies has rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is still a lag in cultural transition, creating a dangerous gap between technological possibilities and patient and physician expectations. Seizing the current opportunity could bring a long-term vision of patient-centered care into practical reality.
Health care in the 21st century has started undergoing major changes due to the rising number of patients with chronic conditions; increased access to new technologies, medical information, and peer support via the internet; and the ivory tower of medicine breaking down. This marks the beginning of a cultural transformation called digital health. This has also led to a shift in the roles of patients and medical professionals, resulting in a new, equal partnership. When COVID-19 hit, the adoption of digital health technologies skyrocketed. The technological revolution we had been aiming for in health care took place in just months due to the pandemic, but the cultural transition is lagging. This creates a dangerous gap between what is possible technologically through remote care, at-home lab tests, or health sensors and what patients and physicians are actually longing for. If we do it well enough now, we can spare a decade of technological transformations and bring that long-term vision of patients becoming the point of care to the practical reality of today. This is a historic opportunity we might not want to waste.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据