Skip to main content

How Does Monitoring Help?

 

Sensor devices such as activity monitors, heart rate monitors, sleep trackers, continuous glucose monitors, and even noise or light sensors, are increasingly becoming part of routine health care. There are of course still significant technical challenges: How does a continuous stream of everyday observations get integrated into one's electronic medical record? How does it get processed into a form that clinicians can use? What are the algorithms that turn data into information for the end users of these devices, and are they accurate? Is advice based on these observations reliable? Does it ultimately help to treat or prevent health problems for the people who use the devices? 

Despite these open questions, monitoring devices are becoming more varied and feature-rich every day, and we can expect their use to continue growing. In the current blog post, then, I will consider monitoring devices from a psychological perspective. My question of interest is not whether the devices help people (the average patient seems relatively convinced that they do). Instead, I'm interested in how sensor devices might help people to improve their health -- the various possible mechanisms of action by which using a sensor device might lead someone to health behavior change. To consider this question I will rely on a relatively simple example of health sensors: the MEMS cap. MEMS (Medication Event Monitoring System) are large plastic caps that get screwed on to the top of a pill bottle -- see the image above. MEMS caps record a series of date/time stamps, which allow one to infer the pattern of times when someone opened the bottle to take their medication. People who use MEMS or other electronic monitoring devices tend to have better adherence, at least for a little while. 

Why should that be the case? All the device is doing is to track someone's medication use. It doesn't include alarms, or text notifications, or other features that might directly remind people to take their medication. Its effect is therefore entirely psychological. Here are some ways in which it might help:

1. When you give someone a monitoring device, it can make them start to pay more attention to their own behavior. Mere attention can have strong effects, because it brings things to people's awareness that they didn't notice previously. Simply paying attention to something can also increase someone's level of motivation to change it. Essentially, the behavior becomes something that they are thinking about, rather than something that was unconscious or invisible to them.

2. If the device lets you see your own data, that can enhance the effect of attention. Again, viewing your results can help you to be aware of patterns or make you more conscientious about things that were previously outside your awareness. Providing people with their own data is the first step in implementing gamification strategies like streak tracking or badges, but it can be beneficial even without those additions.

3. When people know someone else is paying attention to their behavior, they tend to behave differently. This is called a monitoring effect or a measurement effect. Knowing that someone else is paying attention to you can have a powerful motivating effect, making you want to please them. 

4. If health care providers have new information about their patients' behavior, they may change their clinical approach. For example, knowing that a patient is taking their medication consistently without any benefit may lead the prescriber to change the treatment plan or increase the dose. That's different from what they might have done if they suspected that the treatment wasn't working because of patient nonadherence. 

Starting from these monitoring basics, one can add many different enhancements. Besides the various gamification strategies, it's possible to provide tailored messages to patients. These messages can themselves affect behavior via different pathways, such as direct information to increase patients' knowledge, motivational messages to increase their readiness for change, or feedback about their progress toward health goals over time. Alternately, the pathway summarizing sensor data for healthcare providers can feed into decision support algorithms that recommend specific evidence-based changes in treatment, or even suggest evidence-based ways to interact with patients in support of behavior change (e.g., motivational interviewing). And more sophisticated sensors than MEMS provide correspondingly more options, e.g. based on combining data from movement, heart rate, noise, and temperature sensors. All of these options build on each other to create a health care system that is more individualized and responsive to patients' needs, while also offering patients needed scaffolding to change their own health behaviors.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prototypes and Willingness: The Theory of Planned Behavior Revisited

  You may recall my blog post from last year on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) , titled "in praise of a failed model." My evaluation of this model was that it accurately describes the Narrative Mind, which does control intentions. But the ultimate goal of the TPB is to predict behavior, and the relationship between intentions and behavior is weak at best -- in fact, it is entirely attributable to the fact that when someone says they don't intend to do something, they probably won't do it. When they say they do intend to do it, their actual results are no better than chance, a result of the intention-behavior gap as described in Two Minds Theory.  The full TPB is shown in this diagram: Cognitive constructs like attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (i.e., self-efficacy) are Narrative-system phenomena, and they do indeed have relationships with each other and with intentions (which are also products of the Narrative Mind). Perceived behavi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Leventhal's Common-Sense Model and Two Minds Theory

Leventhal, Diefenbach, and Leventhal's (1992) "common sense model" of self-regulation. My 2018 paper describing Two Minds Theory (TMT) cites work by my colleague and coauthor Dr. Paula Meek, who conducted studies of patients experiencing the symptom of breathlessness due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). Paula's research used a model by Howard and Elaine Leventhal (with Michael Diefenbach) that was an early iteration of the dual-process approach also used in TMT. She found that people who focused their attention on different aspects of the feeling of breathlessness then in turn had different interpretations of what that symptom meant for them, and that those interpretations changed their perception of the symptom's intensity. This example illustrates a back-and-forth between perceptions and thoughts, which is characteristic of Leventhal's model. Leventhal's dual-process model, sometimes called the "common sense model" of self-reg...
Post a Comment
Read more

Intuitive Decision-Making by People with Diabetes

People with diabetes often find it challenging to maintain their blood sugar levels, in part because diabetes is a complicated disease. When the kidneys don't produce enough insulin fast enough to adjust for changes in digestion or activity, blood sugar can fluctuate rapidly, even over the course of a single day. To manage this, people with diabetes often need to make changes in multiple areas: adopting a low-carbohydrate diet, managing the timing and amount of exercise they get, keeping track of the times when their blood sugar rises and falls, potentially giving themselves a dose of insulin around mealtimes, managing stress, and other preventive measures as well.  But despite all of this complexity, the people who manage their diabetes most successfully are often the least  obsessive about the fine details. When my Dad was first diagnosed with diabetes, he checked his blood sugar often (using finger sticks; continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices weren’t yet a thing). Bu...
Post a Comment
Read more