Health 2.0 – Data, Information, & Connection

Yesterday I relayed my version of a Health 2.0 Appendectomy and that got my brain racing around the concept of Health 2.0. Fran’s question is haunting me, I guess, but I think that Health 2.0 can be broken down into three parts: Data, Information, and Connection.

Data

I really like this WikiAnswers definition of the difference between data and information. Data is an important part of the Health 2.0 make-up because it is all around us. When I think of data, I’m thinking about the raw data around the interactions that we have on a daily basis. The fact that person A exhibits a symptom of nausea that person B does not exhibit under the same circumstances. This stuff isn’t interpreted, it just exists.

Every prescription, and non-prescription medication for that matter, has data around it. Every human being has data around them. Every doctor, every nurse, every hospital, every machine… We’re living in a world filled to the brim with medical data.

On one hand, it’s a good thing that we have so much data. On the other hand, it’s tough because where do you start when you have so much to begin with?

Information

Information, however, is actionable data. The fact that you’re allergic to iodine is data, until a doc or a tech wants you to drink iodine right before a CAT scan. When two sets of data are brought together, they turn into information. If your data set shows that you’re not allergic to iodine, then you’re good to go. If your data set shows that you are allergic to iodine,then you raise the issue and look toward Plan B. Either way though, the data is synthesized into information.

Every drug’s and human’s data can be interpreted as information when they are brought together. Every doctor, every nurse, every hospital, every machine… When two data sets get together, information happens.

Information is harder to come by, because it takes synthesis to truly exist, and synthesis takes time. This synthesis, coupled with the fact that we can easily become overwhelmed with all the data that exists around everything, makes medical information a valuable resource.

Connection

Health connection is a relatively newer concept, in my mind. In the past, there was no reason to question a doctor’s professional opinion, because they were doctor’s and you weren’t. “[They] didn’t spend six years in evil medical school to be called Mr. thank you very much.” But the internet changed that. The internet let us look for data that we could synthesize into information ourselves, based on our knowledge of ourselves and our symptoms. More importantly, the internet has allowed us to connect and share our information with people. What’s really cool about this is that, if we can find people with information, we can save time.

Connection is what happens when data becomes information, but it’s also what happens when I share my information with someone else.

What Does It All Mean?

I would argue that these are the only three pieces in the Health 2.0 equation, and welcome anybody to explain why I’m wrong.

So what? A new friend of mine, Ted Smith, mentioned to me last week that the problem to solve with health care in America is engagement. I think that he’s right on. People just don’t seem to be engaged in being healthy.

Therefore, if we care to bring Health 2.0 to fruition some day sooner rather than later, we will need to figure out one of two things: A. we’ll need to create a system that truly incentivizes people to track their data and synthesize it when necessary… and I’m talking about 90% or better utilization. Or B. we’ll need to create a system that tracks people’s data across facilities, making it easy to track their health without their engagement… and yes I’m talking about taking us out of the equation altogether in this scenario.

Both options offer their own benefits and challenges. But I think that this is what we should really be answering first, when we talk about Health 2.0. Which solution do you think is the way of the future and why?