Wireless Medical Blog
Telehealth, Mobile Health, Connected Health, and now ECare – is there a difference?
By Vaishali Kamat - Last updated: Thursday, April 22, 2010Telehealth, telecare, telemedicine, connecetd health, mobile health, ehealth and now ecare. Is there a difference?
The truth is I struggle with these terms myself. When creating the content for Cambridge Consultants Wireless Medical web pages I can never be sure which of the terms will be relevant to our customers. While there may be some subtle distinction to the originators of these terms they largely describe the same overall concept. The application of communications technology to the health sector. I believe that the industry and the public would benefit from some clarity of message.
Last year we conducted a survey of Healthcare experts that found 40% were not familiar with the term connected health (results presentation here as a PDF). This figure shouldn’t be too surprising given the range of terms that are being used by experts. Some of the confusion is introduced by a range of conferences, trade publications and market reports which distinguish themselves from the competition by creating terms that describe a niche within a niche. Another reason to create these new terms is to distinguish from history. Telemedicine is a term that has been around for a long time, but as a result it is often associated with a dated technology. New market entrants often look for a more exciting description of their technology.
Adding to the confusion the FCC published its national broadband plan (large PDF link) in which they examined the Healthcare needs for telecoms systems. On page 200 they attempt to define the terms used but appear to have introduced one more term – ECare.
So I have added some context and links that may help:
Telehealth: The broadest term to describe the application of telecoms technology to the improvement of health. This is most often associated with remote patient monitoring – the collection of health data in the home or on the move, and often associated with non clinical applications e.g fitness or wellbeing.
Telemedicine: Telemedicine is the use of communications technology to exchange medical information from one site to another. Most commonly associated with remote consultations via video conference, or remote diagnostic services. The leading organisation in this area is the American telemedicine association.
Mobile Health: Mobile health or mHealth is specific to the use of mobile communications networks for the provision of health services. Typical applications include text message appointment reminders and education programs or pharmaceutical authentication.
Connected Health: Connected health is a term that is used primarily in the US, an more recently Europe. The distinction from telehealth appears to be the focus on health services that reduce cost, but it still focuses on remote monitoring, and the impact of comms technology on health. The term is connected to the Partners centre for connected health in MA USA.
Health 2.0: Health 2.0 is the application of web2.0 technologies to the provision of health services. Primarily associated with the work of Matthew Holt, and the Health 2.0 conferences. Historically focused on bay area startups in health search it now has a wider focus overlapping with telemedicine. (My intro to Health2.0 PDF presentation)
Other associated terms: Telecare, E-care, ehealth, assisted living, romote patient monitoring, wireless health, wireless medical, healthcare unbound.
This is my interpretation of the terms, and there will be different opinions. I’m sure I’ve missed other definitions. Which ever term you use there is significant growth predicted in the market – With such similarities shouldn’t we rationalise this confusing list of terms?
Comments:
Donna Cusano Said,
April 24, 2010 @ 1:31 am
Paul, your fine discussion on terminology illustrates the need to settle on a set of terms that everyone understands as meaning substantially the same thing. I like ‘connected health’ best with ‘eHealth’ second, as umbrella terms for the field. Drilling down we get sub-terms: telehealth for remote vital signs monitoring, telemedicine for audio/video point-to-point conferencing, mobile health for transferring data via mobile platforms. However you did omit the oldest and well accepted (particularly in UK) term–telecare–which refers to remote behavioral or well-being monitoring. This covers PERS, behavioral telemonitors (QuietCare and WellAWARE), fire/smoke detectors, fall detectors (Halo, Wellcare) and medication reminders (MedSignals, Vitality GlowCaps), which don’t fit telehealth’s vital signs emphasis. And as the technology has changed, there’s plenty of cross-over (telecare with telehealth features, telehealth with mobile features, etc.)
In 2005, when Steve Hards started Telecare Aware, telecare was the lead ‘connected health’ technology available and we’ve followed its growth ever since. (Our section on definitions is at http://www.telecareaware.com/index.php/what-is-telecare.html and discussion area at http://www.telecareaware.com/index.php/telecare-telehealth-terminology.html) I’m also a firm believer that terminology DOES matter. The FCC’s e-Care term is contradictory, unneeded and not even supported by the big users (DOD and VA). I won’t recap my ‘rant’ regarding e-Care–it’s on Telecare Aware here–http://bit.ly/ao9r5I.
Mike Orton Said,
April 24, 2010 @ 8:46 am
Use of generally accepted terminolgy is important to convey ideas or discussion on specific areas of interest in their context, especially where technology is being discussed and to avoid misunderstanding. This has been a subject matter for some time within the Telecare field and one has only to take a look at the excellent Telecare Aware website to appreciate this – http://www.telecareaware.com
A classic example is the use of Assistive Technology which has been used to describe more specific technology such as Telecare or other electronic technology when in fact it is a broad term:
Marshall (2000) defines AT as ‘any item, piece of equipment, product or system that is used to create, maintain or improve functional capabilities foe individuals with cognitive, physical or communication disabilities’.
Accepted definitions of terminology are therefore important within the industry to allow meaningful discussions from a common baseline. The dilemma is that the use of this terminology when discussing applications with clients and their families can often lead to confusion and sometimes apprehension, so we need to be careful to use plain english when describing the benefits of the technology.
Ade Bamigboye Said,
April 25, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
Technologists, regulatory authorities and industry analysts care about the differences between telehealth, mobile health, connected health and all of the other healthcare solutions driven by some form of communications technology however subtle these differences may be. They care because it helps to position the focus of a given healthcare solution, the approach that has been taken, who the relevant partners are and what business models are suitable. Regardless of the label applied, the processes and goals of any communications driven healthcare solution are the same. Patients are “remote” from a dedicated care facility but can access monitoring devices that are local to them. Data can be collected locally and transmitted to a remote centre for further processing and action. The overall increase in efficiency, reduced costs and improved patient experience are meant to be what these systems deliver.
On the other hand, patients and carers who would be key beneficiaries if these systems ever achieve mainstream adoption do not care about the differences. They are concerned with access to relevant and understandable information, reassurance from a GP or a specialist and ultimately access to a care plan should they require one. If, from the patient’s viewpoint, a consultation, diagnosis or delivery of a recommended course of action is best carried out over mobile then that is fine. If it happens to be better delivered over the internet then that is fine also.
Whilst the industry continues to look at ways of rationalising the confusing range of options in the hope that it will help move the industry forward, the more important job of communicating the benefits to healthcare experts and potential users still has some way to go.
Consideration needs to be given to taking a more product marketing approach to describing and promoting these terms. All of terms describe a form of remote patient monitoring, so that has to be the core “product”. The options within this are the range of parameters that can be monitored. The methods of implementation determine whether mobile, fixed line or internet provide the interface between the patient and remote facility.
In much the same way that EDGE, GPRS, GSM and similar terms appear in the smallest possible print on your mobile phone contract, “m”, “e”, “Tele” and other terms preceding healthcare need to be relegated in importance.
paulwilliamson Said,
April 26, 2010 @ 9:10 am
It is clear that this is a hot topic, and you can follow further discussion on a couple of linked in group discussions:
pharmacy tech Said,
April 27, 2010 @ 3:29 am
My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!
uberVU – social comments Said,
April 28, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by pnwilliamson: Telehealth, mobile health, connected health – is there a difference? answers in my latest post -http://bit.ly/9fqW11…
Certified Nursing Assistant Said,
May 2, 2010 @ 4:41 am
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
Paul Sonnier Said,
May 12, 2010 @ 2:25 am
Here’s a definition for Wireless Health: “The convergence of wireless technology with the continuum of clinical healthcare (preventive, chronic, and acute) and consumer health (physical fitness, wellness, and aging in place).” In other words, it broadly encompasses any health- or healthcare-related application or solution incorporating radio frequency (RF) radiation functionality.
Check out Brian Dolan’s comments – and related discussion – on MobiHealthNews:
http://mobihealthnews.com/7517/semantics-the-ecare-terminology-debate/
There’s also (yet another!) parallel discussion on this topic occurring in the Wireless Health group on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2181454 (See discussion entitled:
Is “Wireless Health” the techie term for “mHealth”?)
Mobilereflex Said,
June 9, 2010 @ 10:05 am
Visit http://www.mobilereflex.com in particular, can help streamline the way healthcare professionals enter, access, and share data, resulting in improved healthcare at reduced costs. Patient care is an inherently mobile proposition, and innovations in hardware, software, and wireless are needed to distribute data and make it available to clinicians.
Wireless health – Part 1: How do we transmit all the data? » Wireless Medical Said,
June 11, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
[...] Telehealth, Mobile Health, Connected Health, and now ECare – is there a difference? Categories [...]
Chris Johnson Said,
April 23, 2010 @ 3:51 pm
As editor of http://www.connectedhealth.org I would agree that there are many (>15?) using variants of this terminology – both in US, UK, and even in Korea.
You are right that many others use variants of e-health, telehealth, tele-medicine, Web 2.,etc.
This just goes to show we are in a living market with a lot of overlap and a lot of activity. We all talk about connected patients in some way, shape, or form. It might be nice if there was one word. The people who write for connectedhealth.org think that this is a good term – used by Partners/Harvard in US and NHS in UK. People will get to know – at the end-of-the-day content is king. Depending of course which content is important to you.
No worries!