Wearable research: Design? UX? No, accuracy of bio-metric data rises to the top

A 3-minute read, at best. I promise a chuckle inside the more serious business topic of wearables for health. A recent study is worth sharing; the one caveat being since the research was commissioned by a sensor company, one has to read it somewhat skeptically — yet, health wearables is a hot topic among consumers, so the research is certainly relevant.

Now for the chuckle. From the New Yorker:

Thanks New Yorker for always skewering a topic just right.

Let’s look at recent research about a conversation I have rarely thought about: health wearable accuracy. Not being a wearable person, I would have thought that accuracy of bio metric data was a given or else who’d buy one?

In this study, consumers weighed in that the most important aspect of their wearable, whether an owner or prospective buyer, was accuracy.

Methodology: The online survey polled 706 U.S. consumers, ages 18-65, on their knowledge and preferences around wearables, which were defined as a device, clothing and/or accessories incorporating computer and advanced electronic technologies. Among those surveyed:

  • More than 42% of respondents own or have owned a wearable device
  • 63% ranked accuracy as a highly important feature of that wearable.
  • Among wearable owners, 80% feel that their wearable has a positive impact on their health.
  • For those who do not own a wearable, 74% of would consider using one if accuracy in wearables could help them to better manage their health.

Conclusion? The door is open and consumers just want to know the wearable they want isn’t just ergonomically beautiful or solves 50 problems, they want to know it works like a clock. After all, who would buy a clock that wasn’t accurate?

Thank you Valencell. The Valencell site and study press release is here: http://goo.gl/7BhLxp

As always, I hope this helps deepen your thinking on devices, Pill + type strategies.

Wearable research: Design? UX? No, accuracy of bio-metric data rises to the top was originally published on Harbinger Associates

7 Things an Oncologist Should Never Say to a Patient.

Summary: 2-minute read: this is an heart-felt article on CancerNetwork about one oncologists honest admission of what NOT to say to a cancer patient. So many of us focus on aiding or informing the doctor/patient dialogue, but here is an example of the painful reality of insensitivity reality patients face. We need to understand this because emotion is a part of the discussion, and we marketers shy away from any emotional language or communication.

In reading this we should all remember one thing: in a world where automation and technology seem to have taken over many marketing conversations, humanity and empathy still rule the day as the most effective form of communication.

What are the 7 things? 

“I’m afraid I have bad news.”

“Is there some reason you did not see your doctor when this started?”

“You’re just wasting your money taking supplements.”

“I don’t want you leaving town.”

“If you had not smoked, this would not have happened to you.”

“You have (insert number) months left to live.”

“This treatment will not make you sick.”

Here’s the entire article; for each statement, the doctor supplies straight-forward, common sense reasons why each is harmful to the patient. Some of this is blindingly obvious. Still, it provides empathy and clarity around how to communicate in a way that guides, not hurts.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/blog/7-things-oncologists-should-never-say-their-patients

 

Thank you CancerNetwork and Dr Craig Hildreth.

7 Things an Oncologist Should Never Say to a Patient. was originally published on Harbinger Associates

Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare: It’s here but is it ready?

Summary, a 4-minute read: this covers the emergence of Artificial intelligence bots — like Alexa from Amazon — and how they are starting to be used in healthcare. But the challenges are as long as a python — from privacy to cost, customization to making it relevant. We all should know by now that AI is another industry-changing technology.

Once you study it, the concept of “Beyond-the-pill” seems one-dimensional. But to apply it to a patient app it seems a bit premature. Or is it? What is in the market now?

The AI tipping point has occurred, driven mostly by Alexa/amazon and Google Now. But people already use their voice-recognition software in their smartphones now. Just look at the landscape chart in this post and you see that there is no one leader, nor singular technological approach to AI (full chart at end of post). In a recent study by SoftServe/CD Data, the investment in AI is accelerating:

And on the adoption/satisfaction curve  MindMeld did a study of smartphone users level of adoption/satisfaction with their current use of voice-recognition:
chart-1

While the chart may be hard to read, let me spell out the dramatic findings — especially for such a nascent technology:

  • More than 50% of respondents have tried voice assistants
  • More than  30% are “regular users” (daily or weekly)
  • 50% of those who use the assistants are “satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” with their experience
  • 20% consider themselves dissatisfied with the technology

So, the first chart showed the investment tipping point, but this last finding demonstrates the “human” tipping point:

  • 60% of the respondents said they adopted IA in the past year (40 percent within the past six months)

But the landscape is overwhelming; the early stage of applying this voice-recognition/machine-learning daunting to any Biopharma company looking to use AI for, let’s say, patient adherence, or providing a “Past-the-pill” solution. What is in the market now worth looking at?

Recently, I conducted a analysis of AI health apps for a chronic condition. For so many chronic conditions, especially for data-paranoid Biopharma companies, it is pretty clear that AI apps are at a very early-stage development and adoption. There’s Welldoc,HealthrhythmsCogito, and many others being tested in a variety of clinical environments. Though each is amazing, it is early for them.

On the more “mature” end of the spectrum, you can have Watson from IBM customize a part of its software for a dialog/voice active and passive recognition app; but perhaps farthest along in the Biopharma space is NextIT AlME Health Coach Bot. Not only has it been adopted by Biopharma — TEVA Copaxone being the most dramatic in-market example — it is winning awards and is so highly customizable it may be the best answer for really providing value to patients beyond trackers and other one-dimensional apps, toss-away apps.

Consider the facts of this award-winning AI App:  AlME Health Coach Bot (YouTube video here) uses brand-approved content to shape into an AI Health Coach Bot dialogue, one that offers real conversation and learns from what you say to it!

There is so much to say on this topic, it is too much. But to conclude: if your brand or clients are asking about “We want a REAL app that engages our patients because that last one stunk” then look to NextIT first. They have proven what others are still testing.

mobile

Just to put an exclamation point on why healthcare should dabble, but not adopt as of yet, the chart below says it all: too many choices, directions, unproven ground. But each organization needs to have some ear to the ground, a group that looks into these technologies on a regular basis. Pay attention, or you’ll miss the idea that goes Beyond-the-Pill to true help in the form of AI.

Landscape

Thank you to MindMeldSoftServeVB Profiles and IBM for not just supplying meaningful content, but for being the evangelists and change-agents we need.

Enjoy Watson!

Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare: It’s here but is it ready? was originally published on Harbinger Associates

In health is the notion of “Trust” as important as a good User Experience? A new study offers the stunning truth.

Summary: one new study by Makovsky/Kelton delves into the latest trends of online behavior and the issue of trust among key audiences and healthcare. The results seem to indicate that a good User Experience is almost as important as the source, if not more! Read on for the story and stats, and a few helpful conclusions.

Are we really so superficial? Or have we as consumers finally reached that tipping point of where our Experience with Web site content is truly how we frame our trust of that content? Just check out this chart and see how the “trust” chart line and the “ease-of-use” from the Makovsky “Pulse of Online Search Survey, 2016”.

I love human contradictions. We are so simple and yet so complex. Take a few observations from this chart: Advocacy sites are the most trusted and yet least visited…is that really because their “ease-of-use” is so crude, under-funded and under-engaging? It would seem so.

59% trust Advocacy sites, but only 19% visit them.

53% visit WebMD, but only 39% trust the content.

And for Biopharma? Only 10% visit (OUCH) but of those, around 40% trust the content and find it easy-to-use.

Does that mean that Biopharma’s (bad) reputation is the biggest block to more brand site visitation? Or, as the report teases out, is the real key that Biopharma brands need to pull down the walls and channel the authenticity of the Advocacy groups and their own branded needs? Why can’t Advocacy groups distribute their content on brand sites?  It almost seems a childish church-and-state separation.

Last eye-opening but not surprising stat:

95% of online Searchers (18+) trust their doctor. BUT 62% research the recommended treatment after a visit. Does that tell us that consumers have just embraced this habit, or is it that ever-shorter, ever-less-satisfying visit to the doctor leaves us with more questions than answers? Another reason why Biopharma brands need to accept that patients want the science — brands need to start sharing their clinical information, as well as disease state, with transparency. Patients are looking for that information — but they are not looking at the branded site.

The lead researcher is quite succinct in setting the reality, the challenge and the opportunity for healthcare brands — hospitals or manufacturers — to pay attention to: “The type of health information consumers seek online is changing, as well – with consumer behaviors clearly shifting from symptom-focused research to treatment-focused research, both before and after doctor visits,” commented Alexandra Peterson, SVP and Practice Director, Makovsky Health.“Consumer actions to prepare for and then validate conversations with physicians via online search illustrate the balance between patient empowerment and desire for professional guidance. Combined with the fact that the majority of patients are likely to ask their doctor for a prescription by name, survey results show that patients are walking into the doctor’s office armed with more information than ever, eager to have a more active role in the treatment discussion and decision.”

CX (Customer Experience) is my work and is almost the single greatest thread that goes through every marketing conversation.  As marketing professionals, digitally conversant, we all fret and obsess at the gaps and opportunities clients either do not see, or do not have the ability to act upon. Yet, with every passing day, we all are documenting the Customer Experience in ever greater detail; as we see studies like this we need to view and share them as confirmation we are doing the right thing for our clients, patients and caregivers.

The real insight here is how healthcare and health in general is fast becoming a shopping experience — it used to be “Does it work?” when it came to treatments. Now it seems we consumer are overlaying our shopping habits to health — “I don’t like how this looks or feels”.  Since Biopharma companies DO have a lot to offer patients, focusing on CX and perhaps the trustworthiness of their content needs to come to the forefront of planning any campaign.

In health is the notion of “Trust” as important as a good User Experience? A new study offers the stunning truth. was originally published on Harbinger Associates

In health is the notion of “Trust” as important as a good User Experience? A new study offers the stunning truth.

Summary: one new study by Makovsky/Kelton delves into the latest trends of online behavior and the issue of trust among key audiences and healthcare. The results seem to indicate that a good User Experience is almost as important as the source, if not more! Read on for the story and stats, and a few helpful conclusions.

Are we really so superficial? Or have we as consumers finally reached that tipping point of where our Experience with Web site content is truly how we frame our trust of that content? Just check out this chart and see how the “trust” chart line and the “ease-of-use” from the Makovsky “Pulse of Online Search Survey, 2016”.

I love human contradictions. We are so simple and yet so complex. Take a few observations from this chart: Advocacy sites are the most trusted and yet least visited…is that really because their “ease-of-use” is so crude, under-funded and under-engaging? It would seem so.

59% trust Advocacy sites, but only 19% visit them.

53% visit WebMD, but only 39% trust the content.

And for Biopharma? Only 10% visit (OUCH) but of those, around 40% trust the content and find it easy-to-use.

Does that mean that Biopharma’s (bad) reputation is the biggest block to more brand site visitation? Or, as the report teases out, is the real key that Biopharma brands need to pull down the walls and channel the authenticity of the Advocacy groups and their own branded needs? Why can’t Advocacy groups distribute their content on brand sites?  It almost seems a childish church-and-state separation.

Last eye-opening but not surprising stat:

95% of online Searchers (18+) trust their doctor. BUT 62% research the recommended treatment after a visit. Does that tell us that consumers have just embraced this habit, or is it that ever-shorter, ever-less-satisfying visit to the doctor leaves us with more questions than answers? Another reason why Biopharma brands need to accept that patients want the science — brands need to start sharing their clinical information, as well as disease state, with transparency. Patients are looking for that information — but they are not looking at the branded site.

The lead researcher is quite succinct in setting the reality, the challenge and the opportunity for healthcare brands — hospitals or manufacturers — to pay attention to: “The type of health information consumers seek online is changing, as well – with consumer behaviors clearly shifting from symptom-focused research to treatment-focused research, both before and after doctor visits,” commented Alexandra Peterson, SVP and Practice Director, Makovsky Health.“Consumer actions to prepare for and then validate conversations with physicians via online search illustrate the balance between patient empowerment and desire for professional guidance. Combined with the fact that the majority of patients are likely to ask their doctor for a prescription by name, survey results show that patients are walking into the doctor’s office armed with more information than ever, eager to have a more active role in the treatment discussion and decision.”

CX (Customer Experience) is my work and is almost the single greatest thread that goes through every marketing conversation.  As marketing professionals, digitally conversant, we all fret and obsess at the gaps and opportunities clients either do not see, or do not have the ability to act upon. Yet, with every passing day, we all are documenting the Customer Experience in ever greater detail; as we see studies like this we need to view and share them as confirmation we are doing the right thing for our clients, patients and caregivers.

The real insight here is how healthcare and health in general is fast becoming a shopping experience — it used to be “Does it work?” when it came to treatments. Now it seems we consumer are overlaying our shopping habits to health — “I don’t like how this looks or feels”.  Since Biopharma companies DO have a lot to offer patients, focusing on CX and perhaps the trustworthiness of their content needs to come to the forefront of planning any campaign.

In health is the notion of “Trust” as important as a good User Experience? A new study offers the stunning truth.

Summary: one new study by Makovsky/Kelton delve into the latest trends of online behavior and the issue of trust among key audiences and healthcare. The results seem to indicate that a good User Experience is almost as important as the source, if not more! Read on for the story and stats, and a few helpful conclusions.

Are we really so superficial? Or have we as consumers finally reached that tipping point of where our Experience with Web site content is truly how we frame our trust of that content? Just check out this chart and see how the “trust” chart line and the “ease-of-use” from the Makovsky “Pulse of Online Search Survey, 2016”.

I love human contradictions. We are so simple and yet so complex. Take a few observations from this chart: Advocacy sites are the most trusted and yet least visited…is that really because their “ease-of-use” is so crude, under-funded and under-engaging? It would seem so.

59% trust Advocacy sites, but only 19% visit them.

53% visit WebMD, but only 39% trust the content.

And for Biopharma? Only 10% visit (OUCH) but of those, around 40% trust the content and find it easy-to-use.

Does that mean that Biopharma’s (bad) reputation is the biggest block to more brand site visitation? Or, as the report teases out, is the real key that Biopharma brands need to pull down the walls and channel the authenticity of the Advocacy groups and their own branded needs? Why can’t Advocacy groups distribute their content on brand sites?  It almost seems a childish church-and-state separation.

Last eye-opening but not surprising stat:

95% of online Searchers (18+) trust their doctor. BUT 62% research the recommended treatment after a visit. Does that tell us that consumers have just embraced this habit, or is it that ever-shorter, ever-less-satisfying visit to the doctor leaves us with more questions than answers? Another reason why Biopharma brands need to accept that patients want the science — brands need to start sharing their clinical information, as well as disease state, with transparency. Patients are looking for that information — but they are not looking at the branded site.

The lead researcher is quite succinct in setting the reality, the challenge and the opportunity for healthcare brands — hospitals or manufacturers — to pay attention to: “The type of health information consumers seek online is changing, as well – with consumer behaviors clearly shifting from symptom-focused research to treatment-focused research, both before and after doctor visits,” commented Alexandra Peterson, SVP and Practice Director, Makovsky Health.“Consumer actions to prepare for and then validate conversations with physicians via online search illustrate the balance between patient empowerment and desire for professional guidance. Combined with the fact that the majority of patients are likely to ask their doctor for a prescription by name, survey results show that patients are walking into the doctor’s office armed with more information than ever, eager to have a more active role in the treatment discussion and decision.”

CX (Customer Experience) is my work and is almost the single greatest thread that goes through every marketing conversation.  As marketing professionals, digitally conversant, we all fret and obsess at the gaps and opportunities clients either do not see, or do not have the ability to act upon. Yet, with every passing day, we all are documenting the Customer Experience in ever greater detail; as we see studies like this we need to view and share them as confirmation we are doing the right thing for our clients, patients and caregivers.

The real insight here is how healthcare and health in general is fast becoming a shopping experience — it used to be “Does it work?” when it came to treatments. Now it seems we consumer are overlaying our shopping habits to health — “I don’t like how this looks or feels”.  Since Biopharma companies DO have a lot to offer patients, focusing on CX and perhaps the trustworthiness of their content needs to come to the forefront of planning any campaign.

Makovsky infographic on Search trust

 

 

Thank you to Makovsky Health for their intelligence, generosity and amazing report…

In health is the notion of “Trust” as important as a good User Experience? A new study offers the stunning truth. was originally published on Harbinger Associates

In health is the notion of “Trust” as important as a good User Experience? A new study offers the stunning truth. was originally published on Harbinger Associates

In health is the notion of “Trust” as important as a good User Experience? A new study offers the stunning truth.

Summary: one new study by Makovsky/Kelton delve into the latest trends of online behavior and the issue of trust among key audiences and healthcare. The results seem to indicate that a good User Experience is almost as important as the source, if not more! Read on for the story and stats, and a few helpful conclusions.

Are we really so superficial? Or have we as consumers finally reached that tipping point of where our Experience with Web site content is truly how we frame our trust of that content? Just check out this chart and see how the “trust” chart line and the “ease-of-use” from the Makovsky “Pulse of Online Search Survey, 2016”.

I love human contradictions. We are so simple and yet so complex. Take a few observations from this chart: Advocacy sites are the most trusted and yet least visited…is that really because their “ease-of-use” is so crude, under-funded and under-engaging? It would seem so.

59% trust Advocacy sites, but only 19% visit them.

53% visit WebMD, but only 39% trust the content.

And for Biopharma? Only 10% visit (OUCH) but of those, around 40% trust the content and find it easy-to-use.

Does that mean that Biopharma’s (bad) reputation is the biggest block to more brand site visitation? Or, as the report teases out, is the real key that Biopharma brands need to pull down the walls and channel the authenticity of the Advocacy groups and their own branded needs? Why can’t Advocacy groups distribute their content on brand sites?  It almost seems a childish church-and-state separation.

Last eye-opening but not surprising stat:

95% of online Searchers (18+) trust their doctor. BUT 62% research the recommended treatment after a visit. Does that tell us that consumers have just embraced this habit, or is it that ever-shorter, ever-less-satisfying visit to the doctor leaves us with more questions than answers? Another reason why Biopharma brands need to accept that patients want the science — brands need to start sharing their clinical information, as well as disease state, with transparency. Patients are looking for that information — but they are not looking at the branded site.

The lead researcher is quite succinct in setting the reality, the challenge and the opportunity for healthcare brands — hospitals or manufacturers — to pay attention to: “The type of health information consumers seek online is changing, as well – with consumer behaviors clearly shifting from symptom-focused research to treatment-focused research, both before and after doctor visits,” commented Alexandra Peterson, SVP and Practice Director, Makovsky Health.“Consumer actions to prepare for and then validate conversations with physicians via online search illustrate the balance between patient empowerment and desire for professional guidance. Combined with the fact that the majority of patients are likely to ask their doctor for a prescription by name, survey results show that patients are walking into the doctor’s office armed with more information than ever, eager to have a more active role in the treatment discussion and decision.”

CX (Customer Experience) is my work and is almost the single greatest thread that goes through every marketing conversation.  As marketing professionals, digitally conversant, we all fret and obsess at the gaps and opportunities clients either do not see, or do not have the ability to act upon. Yet, with every passing day, we all are documenting the Customer Experience in ever greater detail; as we see studies like this we need to view and share them as confirmation we are doing the right thing for our clients, patients and caregivers.

The real insight here is how healthcare and health in general is fast becoming a shopping experience — it used to be “Does it work?” when it came to treatments. Now it seems we consumer are overlaying our shopping habits to health — “I don’t like how this looks or feels”.  Since Biopharma companies DO have a lot to offer patients, focusing on CX and perhaps the trustworthiness of their content needs to come to the forefront of planning any campaign.

Makovsky infographic on Search trust

 

 

Thank you to Makovsky Health for their intelligence, generosity and amazing report…

In health is the notion of “Trust” as important as a good User Experience? A new study offers the stunning truth. was originally published on Harbinger Associates