Malvey Donna M, Slovensky Donna J
Department of Health Management and Informatics, College of Health and Public Affairs, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Department of Health Services Administration, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Mhealth. 2017 Sep 22;3:41. doi: 10.21037/mhealth.2017.09.03. eCollection 2017.
In this review, we examine an important piece of the mHealth puzzle that has received scant attention-health policy. The question is whether health policy ultimately will serve to unite nations in advancing global mHealth or, as Mars and Scott suggested in 2010, keep nations isolated and ultimately making their policy decisions in "eHealth silos". Such a non-collaborative approach seriously hampers the potential for using mobile health technologies to deliver health care across borders, assuring individuals access to affordable, convenient, and quality healthcare in underserved regions. From a global perspective, mHealth policy review is difficult as some important policies may be subsumed in comprehensive planning and strategy documents. Political, environmental, economic, organizational, and technology disparities across nations represent a significant impediment to developing mHealth products and services that can be deployed globally. To date, there is modest evidence that such challenges are being addressed. Even though payers can encourage adoption of mHealth with financial incentives for use, it appears that payment or reimbursement tends to be a roadblock for almost all nations, whether they are emerging or developed. If payment for mHealth services is not guaranteed, business models will not be sustainable and providers will have fewer opportunities for scalability. Furthermore, because mHealth policies typically are subject to some type of government scrutiny and oversight, many product developers and entrepreneurs may turn elsewhere for their investments. Global resource scarcity also challenges optimal mHealth deployment, and governments seek to ensure improved population health outcomes as return on their mHealth investments. Unfortunately, such justification is difficult as evaluation methods simply have not kept pace with mHealth technology capability. Requisite measurement tools are sorely lacking when it comes to evaluating efficacy of mHealth interventions, due in part to insufficient research to inform development of needed measurement tools. Because most robust mHealth research trials have been conducted in the developed world with its impressive technology infrastructure and not in developing nations where the health needs are greatest, evaluation of mobile technology intervention from a global perspective tends to be insufficient to inform policy decisions.
在本综述中,我们审视了移动健康(mHealth)难题中一个未得到充分关注的重要方面——卫生政策。问题在于,卫生政策最终是会有助于各国团结起来推动全球移动健康发展,还是会像马尔斯和斯科特在2010年所指出的那样,使各国相互孤立,并最终在“电子健康孤岛”中做出政策决策。这种非协作性方法严重阻碍了利用移动健康技术跨境提供医疗服务的潜力,无法确保人们在服务欠缺地区获得可负担、便捷且优质的医疗保健服务。从全球视角来看,移动健康政策审查颇具难度,因为一些重要政策可能被纳入综合规划和战略文件之中。各国在政治、环境、经济、组织和技术方面存在的差异,是开发能够在全球部署的移动健康产品和服务的重大障碍。迄今为止,仅有少量证据表明此类挑战正在得到应对。尽管支付方可以通过提供使用方面的经济激励措施来鼓励采用移动健康技术,但似乎支付或报销对几乎所有国家而言都是一个障碍,无论这些国家是新兴国家还是发达国家。如果移动健康服务的支付无法得到保障,商业模式将无法持续,供应商实现规模扩张的机会也会减少。此外,由于移动健康政策通常会受到某种形式的政府审查和监督,许多产品开发者和企业家可能会将投资转向其他领域。全球资源稀缺也对移动健康的最佳部署构成挑战,各国政府都在寻求确保改善民众健康状况,以此作为其移动健康投资的回报。遗憾的是,由于评估方法根本无法跟上移动健康技术能力的发展步伐,这种合理性论证颇具难度。在评估移动健康干预措施的效果时,极为缺乏必要的测量工具——部分原因在于,为开发所需测量工具提供参考依据的研究不足。由于大多数强有力的移动健康研究试验是在技术基础设施令人印象深刻的发达国家进行的,而非在健康需求最为迫切的发展中国家进行,因此从全球视角对移动技术干预措施进行评估往往不足以支撑政策决策。