Digital health interventions including telehealth support an increasingly broad range of improvement goals for prevention and treatment. Limitations obstructing the many digital benefits of telehealth from reaching their full potential include lack of robust usability and user centered design, regulatory policy paradigms, lack of adequate high-quality evidence and methodologies to evaluate the performance generalization and clinical robustness. Health innovation is explored in the context of different value systems and a solution is proposed to the fundamental limitations arising in the data value system, an approach to a new telehealth paradigm and incorporated intervention designs which combine clinical innovation with innovation in data resource development. Machine learning and artificial intelligence have the potential to enable circular economies for digital and health innovation, in which sustainable solutions can be offered within a data-enabled collaborative and shared digital ecosystem. Alignment of industry standards, adjustments to regulatory policies, and embracing new governance models for telehealth-based innovation are essential for this new approach to health innovation scaling, clinical adoption and social innovation. Given the trends in technological advances in the past decades, it is likely that healthcare reliance on telehealth will continue to grow.
Wherton J, Shaw S, Papoutsi C, Seuren L, Greenhalgh T. Guidance on the introduction and use of video consultations during COVID-19: important lessons from qualitative research. BMJ Leader. 2020;4(3):120–3.
2.
Tabacof L, Wood J, Mohammadi N, Link K, Tosto-Mancuso, Dewil S. Remote patient monitoring identifies the need for triage in patients with acute COVID-19 infection. Telemed J E Health. 2022;(4):495–500.
3.
Catalyst N. What is telehealth? NEJM Catalyst. 2018;(1).
4.
Salisbury C, ’cathain O, Edwards A, Thomas L, Gaunt C, Hollinghurst D, et al. Effectiveness of an integrated telehealth service for patients with depression: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;(6):515–25.
5.
Davidson L, Boland M. Towards deep phenotyping pregnancy: a systematic review on artificial intelligence and machine learning methods to improve pregnancy outcomes. Brief Bioinform. 2021;(5):369.
6.
Verma A, Towfighi A, Brown A, Abhat A, Casillas A. Moving Towards Equity With Digital Health Innovations for Stroke Care. Stroke. 2022;53(3):689–97.
7.
Martinez-Martin N, Insel TR, Dagum P, Greely HT, Cho MK. Data mining for health: staking out the ethical territory of digital phenotyping. npj Digital Medicine. 2018;1(1).
8.
Milne R, Costa A, Brenman N. Digital phenotyping and the (data) shadow of Alzheimer’s disease. 2022;
9.
Milne R, Costa A, Brenman N. Digital phenotyping and the (data) shadow of Alzheimer’s disease. Big Data & Society. 2022;9(1).
10.
Bilal AM, Fransson E, Bränn E, Eriksson A, Zhong M, Gidén K, et al. Predicting perinatal health outcomes using smartphone-based digital phenotyping and machine learning in a prospective Swedish cohort (Mom2B): study protocol. BMJ Open. 2022;12(4):e059033.
11.
Engelmann L. Digital epidemiology, deep phenotyping and the enduring fantasy of pathological omniscience. Big Data & Society. 2022;9(1).
12.
Tomičić A, Malešević A, Čartolovni A. Ethical, Legal and Social Issues of Digital Phenotyping as a Future Solution for Present-Day Challenges: A Scoping Review. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2021;28(1).
13.
Huckvale K, Venkatesh S, Christensen H. Toward clinical digital phenotyping: a timely opportunity to consider purpose, quality, and safety. npj Digital Medicine. 2019;2(1).
14.
Torous J, Kiang MV, Lorme J, Onnela JP. New Tools for New Research in Psychiatry: A Scalable and Customizable Platform to Empower Data Driven Smartphone Research. JMIR Mental Health. 2016;3(2):e16.
15.
Jayakumar P, Lin E, Galea V, Mathew AJ, Panda N, Vetter I, et al. Digital Phenotyping and Patient-Generated Health Data for Outcome Measurement in Surgical Care: A Scoping Review. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2020;10(4):282.
16.
Kalogeropoulos D, Barach P.
17.
Nguyen B, Ivanov M, Bhat V, Krishnan S. Digital phenotyping for classification of anxiety severity during COVID-19. Frontiers in Digital Health. 2022;4.
18.
Snoswell CL, Chelberg G, De Guzman KR, Haydon HM, Thomas EE, Caffery LJ, et al. The clinical effectiveness of telehealth: A systematic review of meta-analyses from 2010 to 2019. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2021;29(9):669–84.
19.
Snoswell CL, Taylor ML, Comans TA, Smith AC, Gray LC, Caffery LJ. Determining if Telehealth Can Reduce Health System Costs: Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020;22(10):e17298.
20.
Snoswell CL, Stringer H, Taylor ML, Caffery LJ, Smith AC. An overview of the effect of telehealth on mortality: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2021;29(9):659–68.
21.
van Niekerk L, Manderson L, Balabanova D. The application of social innovation in healthcare: a scoping review. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2021;10(1).
22.
Whyle E, Olivier J. Social values and health systems in health policy and systems research: a mixed-method systematic review and evidence map. Health Policy and Planning. 2020;35(6):735–51.
23.
Haring M, Freigang F, Amelung V, Gersch M. What can healthcare systems learn from looking at tensions in innovation processes? A systematic literature review. BMC Health Services Research. 2022;22(1).
24.
Wong AH, Ahmed RA, Ray JM, Khan H, Hughes PG, McCoy CE, et al. Supporting the Quadruple Aim Using Simulation and Human Factors During COVID-19 Care. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2021;36(2):73–83.
25.
Verhulst S, Young A. Identifying and addressing data asymmetries so as to enable (better) science. Frontiers in Big Data. 2022;5.
26.
Final Terms of Reference of the Alliance for Transformative Action on Climate and Health (ATACH), World Health Organization Technical Document.
27.
Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the council, 2022 strategic foresight report -Twinning the green and digital transitions in the new geopolitical context. COM/2022/289 final. 1AD;
28.
Action plan for a sustainable planet in the digital age. 2022;
29.
Equity within digital health technology within the WHO European Region: a scoping review. World Health Organization. 21AD;
30.
Apweiler R, Beissbarth T, Berthold M, Blüthgen N, Burmeister Y, Dammann O. Whither systems medicine? Exp Mol Med. 2018;(3):453.
31.
Schleidgen S, Fernau S, Fleischer H, Schickhardt C, Oßa AK, Winkler EC. Applying systems biology to biomedical research and health care: a précising definition of systems medicine. BMC Health Services Research. 2017;17(1).
32.
Soenksen LR, Ma Y, Zeng C, Boussioux L, Villalobos Carballo K, Na L, et al. Integrated multimodal artificial intelligence framework for healthcare applications. npj Digital Medicine. 2022;5(1).
33.
Tian Q, Price ND, Hood L. Systems cancer medicine: towards realization of predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory (P4) medicine. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2012;271(2):111–21.
34.
Stahlberg EA, Abdel-Rahman M, Aguilar B, Asadpoure A, Beckman RA, Borkon LL, et al. Exploring approaches for predictive cancer patient digital twins: Opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Frontiers in Digital Health. 2022;4.
35.
Seyhan AA, Carini C. Are innovation and new technologies in precision medicine paving a new era in patients centric care? Journal of Translational Medicine. 2019;17(1).
36.
Davidson L, Boland MR. Towards deep phenotyping pregnancy: a systematic review on artificial intelligence and machine learning methods to improve pregnancy outcomes. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2021;22(5).
37.
Weng C, Shah NH, Hripcsak G. Deep phenotyping: Embracing complexity and temporality—Towards scalability, portability, and interoperability. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2020;105:103433.
38.
Subbiah V. The next generation of evidence-based medicine. Nature Medicine. 2023;29(1):49–58.
Webster K. A Circular Economy Is About the Economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability. 2021;
41.
Guo C, Ashrafian H, Ghafur S, Fontana G, Gardner C, Prime M. Challenges for the evaluation of digital health solutions—A call for innovative evidence generation approaches. npj Digital Medicine. 2020;3(1).
42.
Gomes M, Murray E, Raftery J. Economic Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice. PharmacoEconomics. 2022;40(4):367–78.
43.
Mittelstadt B. The impact of artificial intelligence on the doctor-patient relationship. Research at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, United Kingdom Commissioned by the Council of Europe Steering Committee for Human rights in the fields of Biomedicine and Health (CDBIO). 2021. 1AD;
44.
Day S, Shah V, Kaganoff S, Powelson S, Mathews SC. Assessing the Clinical Robustness of Digital Health Startups: Cross-sectional Observational Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2022;24(6):e37677.
45.
Bringing the Benefits of Genome Sequencing to the World. Public policy projects, Global Insights. 2021;
46.
Koutsouleris N, Hauser TU, Skvortsova V, De Choudhury M. From promise to practice: towards the realisation of AI-informed mental health care. The Lancet Digital Health. 2022;4(11):e829–40.
47.
Lemmen C, Woopen C, Stock S. Systems medicine 2030: A Delphi study on implementation in the German healthcare system. Health Policy. 2021;125(1):104–14.
48.
Telehealth Innovation and Circular Economies.
49.
Abdelhalim H, Berber A, Lodi M, Jain R, Nair A, Pappu A, et al. Artificial Intelligence, Healthcare, Clinical Genomics, and Pharmacogenomics Approaches in Precision Medicine. Frontiers in Genetics. 2022;13.
50.
Tape TG. Coherence and correspondence in medicine. Judgment and Decision Making. 2009;4(2):134–40.
51.
Strickland E. 6 reactions to the White House’s AI Bill of Rights The nonbinding principles are being both celebrated and vilified. IEEE spectrum. 14AD;
52.
Afolabi O, Parsekar K, Sibson L, Patel A, Fordham R. Cost effectiveness analysis of the East of England stroke telemedicine service. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2023;32(4):106939.
53.
Wang SV, Sreedhara SK, Schneeweiss S, Franklin JM, Gagne JJ, et al. Reproducibility of real-world evidence studies using clinical practice data to inform regulatory and coverage decisions. Nature Communications. 2022;13(1).
54.
Essén A, Stern AD, Haase CB, Car J, Greaves F, Paparova D, et al. Health app policy: international comparison of nine countries’ approaches. npj Digital Medicine. 2022;5(1).
55.
Diao JA, Venkatesh KP, Raza MM, Kvedar JC. Multinational landscape of health app policy: toward regulatory consensus on digital health. npj Digital Medicine. 2022;5(1).
56.
Neal D, Engelsma T, Tan J, Craven MP, Marcilly R, Peute L, et al. Limitations of the new ISO standard for health and wellness apps. The Lancet Digital Health. 2022;4(2):e80–2.
57.
MALIHA G, GERKE S, COHEN IG, PARIKH RB. Artificial Intelligence and Liability in Medicine: Balancing Safety and Innovation. The Milbank Quarterly. 2021;99(3):629–47.
58.
Sharkey C, Fodouop K. AI and the regulatory paradigm shift at the FDA. 72. Duke Law J. 1AD;86–112.
59.
Richardson S, Lawrence K, Schoenthaler AM, Mann D. A framework for digital health equity. npj Digital Medicine. 2022;5(1).
60.
Kaihlanen AM, Virtanen L, Buchert U, Safarov N, Valkonen P, Hietapakka L, et al. Towards digital health equity - a qualitative study of the challenges experienced by vulnerable groups in using digital health services in the COVID-19 era. BMC Health Services Research. 2022;22(1).
61.
Gonzales A, Guruswamy G, Smith S. Synthetic data in health care: A narrative review. PLOS Digit Health. 2023;(1):82.
62.
Reiner Benaim A, Almog R, Gorelik Y, Hochberg I, Nassar L, Mashiach T, et al. Analyzing Medical Research Results Based on Synthetic Data and Their Relation to Real Data Results: Systematic Comparison From Five Observational Studies. JMIR Medical Informatics. 2020;8(2):e16492.
63.
Kokosi T, Harron K. Synthetic data in medical research. BMJ Medicine. 2022;1(1):e000167.
64.
Ishii-Rousseau JE, Seino S, Ebner DK, Vareth M, Po MJ, Celi LA. The “Ecosystem as a Service (EaaS)” approach to advance clinical artificial intelligence (cAI). PLOS Digital Health. 2022;1(2):e0000011.
65.
Wang SV, Sreedhara SK, Schneeweiss S, Franklin JM, Gagne JJ, et al. Reproducibility of real-world evidence studies using clinical practice data to inform regulatory and coverage decisions. Nature Communications. 2022;13(1).
66.
Rudrapatna VA, Butte AJ. Opportunities and challenges in using real-world data for health care. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2020;130(2):565–74.
67.
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union Legislative Acts. European Commission. 1AD;
68.
Why health-care services are in chaos everywhere. The Economist. 15AD;
69.
Siegler JE, Patel NN, Dine CJ. Prioritizing Paperwork Over Patient Care: Why Can’t We Do Both? Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2015;7(1):16–8.
70.
Doctors wasting over two-thirds of their time doing paperwork. Forbes, Innovation in Healthcare. 2016;
71.
Field R. Why is health care regulation so complex? P T. 2008;(10):607–8.
72.
Braithwaite J. Changing how we think about healthcare improvement. BMJ. 2018;k2014.
73.
Hudson CC, Gauvin S, Tabanfar R, Poffenroth AM, Lee JS, O’Riordan AL. Promotion of role clarification in the Health Care Team Challenge. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2017;31(3):401–3.
74.
Ly O, Sibbald SL, Verma JY, Rocker GM. Exploring role clarity in interorganizational spread and scale-up initiatives: the ‘INSPIRED’ COPD collaborative. BMC Health Services Research. 2018;18(1).
75.
Patel R, Bachu R, Adikey A, Malik M, Shah M. Factors related to physician burnout and its consequences: a review. Behav Sci (Basel). 2018;98.
76.
Gardner R, Cooper E, Haskell J. Physician stress and burnout: the impact of health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;106–14.
77.
Berbís MA, McClintock DS, Bychkov A, Van der Laak J, Pantanowitz L, Lennerz JK, et al. Computational pathology in 2030: a Delphi study forecasting the role of AI in pathology within the next decade. eBioMedicine. 2023;88:104427.
78.
Practicing at the top of your license’ and the “Great” American healthcare labor arbitrage. Forbes, Innovation in Healthcare. 2022;
79.
Subbe C, Barach P. Impact of electronic health records on pre-defined safety outcomes in patients admitted to hospital. A scoping review. BMJ Open. 2011;47446.
80.
Califf RM. Now is the time to fix the evidence generation system. Clinical Trials. 2023;20(1):3–12.
81.
Dlima SD, Shevade S, Menezes SR, Ganju A. Digital Phenotyping in Health Using Machine Learning Approaches: Scoping Review. JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology. 2022;3(1):e39618.
82.
Kanazawa N, Iijima H, Fushimi K. In-hospital cardiac rehabilitation and clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
