DISCUSSION PAPER: Tracking biosensors: new-emerging markets in healthcare and self care (original) (raw)
Related papers
Quantifying the body: monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies
Critical Public Health, early view online
Mobile and wearable digital devices and related Web 2.0 apps and social media tools offer new ways of monitoring, measuring and representing the human body. They are capable of producing detailed biometric data that may be collected by individuals and then shared with others. Health promoters, like many medical and public health professionals, have been eager to seize the opportunities they perceive for using what have been dubbed ‘mHealth’ (‘mobile health’) technologies to promote the public’s health. These technologies are also increasingly used by lay people outside the professional sphere of health promotion as part of voluntary self-tracking strategies (referred to by some as ‘the quantified self’). In response to the overwhelmingly positive approach evident in the health promotion and self-tracking literature, this article adopts a critical sociological perspective to identify some of the social and cultural meanings of self-tracking practices via digital devices. Following an overview of the technologies currently available for such purposes I move on to discuss how they may contribute to concepts of health, embodiment and identity. The discussion focuses particularly on how these technologies promote techno-utopian, enhancement and healthist discourses and the privileging of the visual and the metric in representing the body via these devices.
‘Do-It-Yourself’ Healthcare? Quality of Health and Healthcare Through Wearable Sensors
Science and Engineering Ethics, 2016
Wearable sensors are an integral part of the new telemedicine concept supporting the idea that Information Technologies will improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare. The use of sensors in diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of patients not only potentially changes medical practice but also one's relationship with one's body and mind, as well as the role and responsibilities of patients and healthcare professionals. In this paper, we focus on knowledge assessment of the online communities of Fitbit (a commercial wearable device) and the Quantified Self movement. Through their online forums, we investigate how users' knowledge claims, shared experiences and imaginations about wearable sensors interrogate or confirm the narratives through which they are introduced to the publics. Citizen initiatives like the Quantified Self movement claim the right to 'own' the sensor generated data. But how these data can be used through traditional healthcare systems is an open question. More importantly, wearable sensors trigger a social function that is transformative of the current idea of care and healthcare, focused on sharing, socialising and collectively reflecting about individual problems. Whether this is aligned with current policy making about healthcare, whose central narrative is focused on efficiency and productivity, is to be seen.
International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2016
In the past years, the recording and collection of physical and physiological data from the body through wearable devices has become an increasingly common health-related practice in contemporary Western societies. The rapid development of digital self-tracking technologies has given rise to the production of different scientific discourses. The analysis of 200 published articles has led to the definition of a continuum between "technophile-promises" and "technocritical-risks" representations. However, these representations include different views of corporeality and sociality. Beyond this debate, we propose an alternative theoretical framework that links corporeality and sociality. It interrogates the psychological function that wearable devices may take (or not) for subjects to which these "tools" are addressed. We argue that such psychological function must be embraced by taking into consideration of activity done by the users of these technologies, which engages meaning: It is not the device, but the user him/herself who is confronted to the interpretation of biometric data linked to his/her own body functions on the basis of concrete lived experience. Moreover, we discuss that the activity of users can only be analysed in the sociocultural context to which the associated practices relate (health, sports, play, medicalisation). The conclusion highlights the need to further study the appropriation process of new personal experimentation instruments as to better understand the potential collaborations, risks or resistances that users may develop.
Surveillance & Society, 2019
This paper examines the relationship between interactive life insurance companies and their policyholders and the way in which wearable fitness devices are deployed by these companies as data-generating surveillance technologies instead of personal health and fitness devices. Working within an expanded framework of "surveillance capitalism" (Zuboff 2015), I argue that while the notion of self-care generally associated with wearable fitness devices is underpinned by neoliberal constructs, the incentivization of interactive life insurance programs works to obscure the immense value placed on information capital. This paper briefly considers the legal loopholes involved in the harvesting of sensitive health and fitness information from consumer wearables and suggests that the push toward fitness trackers has little to do with any real concerns for the health and fitness of consumers and policyholders. Lastly, I consider different forms of unwaged labour in the relationship between policyholders and interactive life insurance programs. I contend that policyholders do not recognise the free and immaterial labour that goes into sustaining the data-based business model that interactive life insurance companies and social media platforms use and rely on for profit. In so doing, they relinquish power and control over the data they work to produce, only so that the information can be commodified and used against them.
Making sense of wearables:new-emerging markets and mediascapes
2014
This document reports on the events of the networking/embedding event, organised by the Epinet WP3 team in Brussels Nov 2013. It summarises observations and key findings. The aim of the event was to involve the expertise of professionals from a range public and private agencies involved in the development of wearable sensor technologies and ICT innovation policy. We learn from their input of new-emerging roles for wearable sensors, how they are situated in visions of the future of healthcare and self care, of changing lifestyles and occupations. We learn of complications in clinical practice and in medical devices regulation. We learn of expectations, of what personalisation can stand for, of conceptions of behaviour and of well-being more generally. Finally, we observe a distinct disconnect between top-down policy developments on the future delivery of personalised healthcare to European citizens and grass-roots developments in self care and in the self-management of medical condit...
Digital health and the biopolitics of the Quantified Self
DIGITAL HEALTH, 2017
Recent years have witnessed an intensive growth of systems of measurement and an increasing integration of data processes into various spheres of everyday life. From smartphone apps that measure our activity and sleep, to digital devices that monitor our health and performance at the workplace, the culture of measurement is currently on the rise. Encouraged by movements such as the Quantified Self, whose motto is 'self knowledge through numbers', a growing number of people across the globe are embracing practices of self-quantification and tracking in the spirit of improving their wellbeing and productivity or charting their fitness progress. In this article, I examine the biopolitical aspects of the Quantified Self practices, exploring some of the ideologies and rationalities underlying self-tracking culture. I argue that such practices represent an instantiation of a 'biopolitics of the self' whereby the body is made amenable to management and monitoring techniques that often echo the ethos of neoliberalism. Rather than being restricted to an individualized form, self-tracking practices are also becoming part of a biosocial and communal phenomenon in which individuals are incited to share with others information about their physical activities and biodata. In exploring some examples of this data sharing culture, I critically address the extent to which the sharing of personal physical data can be seen as a 'solidaristic' act that can contribute to a larger Big Data ecosystem and inform the wider medical community and healthcare research and policy. I link this discussion to debates on 'data philanthropy', highlighting the emerging tension between philanthropic discourses of data sharing and issues of privacy. From here, I go on to discuss further ethical and political concerns, particularly in relation to data security and the marked shifts in healthcare responsibilities.
Digital health and the biopolitics of the Quantified Self - Digital Health Journal
Recent years have witnessed an intensive growth of systems of measurement and an increasing integration of data processes into various spheres of everyday life. From smartphone apps that measure our activity and sleep, to digital devices that monitor our health and performance at the workplace, the culture of measurement is currently on the rise. Encouraged by movements such as the Quantified Self, whose motto is 'self knowledge through numbers', a growing number of people across the globe are embracing practices of self-quantification and tracking in the spirit of improving their wellbeing and productivity or charting their fitness progress. In this article, I examine the biopolitical aspects of the Quantified Self practices, exploring some of the ideologies and rationalities underlying self-tracking culture. I argue that such practices represent an instantiation of a 'biopolitics of the self' whereby the body is made amenable to management and monitoring techniques that often echo the ethos of neoliberalism. Rather than being restricted to an individualized form, self-tracking practices are also becoming part of a biosocial and communal phenomenon in which individuals are incited to share with others information about their physical activities and biodata. In exploring some examples of this data sharing culture, I critically address the extent to which the sharing of personal physical data can be seen as a 'solidaristic' act that can contribute to a larger Big Data ecosystem and inform the wider medical community and healthcare research and policy. I link this discussion to debates on 'data philanthropy', highlighting the emerging tension between philanthropic discourses of data sharing and issues of privacy. From here, I go on to discuss further ethical and political concerns, particularly in relation to data security and the marked shifts in healthcare responsibilities.
M-health and health promotion: the digital cyborg and surveillance society
The new mobile wireless computer technologies and social media applications using Web 2.0 platforms have recently received attention from those working in health promotion as a promising new way of achieving their goals of preventing ill-health and promoting healthy behaviours at the population level. There is very little critical examination in this literature of how the use of these digital technologies may affect the targeted groups, in terms of the implications for how individuals experience embodiment, selfhood and social relationships.
This research paper explores potential reasoning behind regulatory responses filed and legislated by the European Union (EU) and its 28 member states in relation to wearable biosensor technology. The premise is that the growth in this type of technology is driven, or accompanied, by a host of sociological trends. In addition, this thesis explores consequent governmental and supranational responses taking shape to regulate this market shift. This premise is put to the test by applying three sociological developments to three case studies. The developments analyzed are: (1) self-surveillance, (2) quantified self and patient empowerment, and (3) neoliberal lifestyles. The three case studies presented are Muse, Fitbit Charge HR, and Google Glass, all of which differ in terms of purpose and data collection. The importance and relevance of this research is marked by the vast data collection enabled by these devices, and the consequent storage and treatment of data. Owing to the contemporary nature of this research the key objective is to discuss and analyze sociological developments that have contributed to this trend, and identify patterns within them. The research question posed in this thesis is: What drives the growth of wearable (consumer) technology, and how are EU states trying to regulate this development?
Sociology Compass, 2018
Walking and cycling have been transformed by digital technologies, which range from mapping apps for wayfinding, through ‘wearables’ which monitor activity, to social media apps for comparing activity within social groups. Some technologies are explicitly orientated to health projects, others are not, yet all have potentially profound effects on bodies, health-orientated identities, and understandings of health. This paper uses the concept of biomedicalisation to explore emerging literature on the intersection of digital technologies with everyday mobility, focusing on walking and cycling. Beyond simply ‘medicalising’ mobility (by bringing it into the realm of public health), digital technologies contribute to various transformations of health: encouraging some health practices, inhibiting others; creating or excluding individual and collective health-related identities; and reconfiguring health and well-being. There is research evidence on the contingent and multiple relationships between digital technologies and social practices, with specific themes including quantification; the role of apps in framing walking as extraordinary, cycling as competitive; enabling users to perform as healthy, neoliberal citizens; and digital careers. There has been less attention on how social divisions are reproduced or disrupted by the mediation of mobility through digital technologies. Further research should consider the impact of digital technologies on political economies of health.