Quantified Self in General Practice

by | Oct 6, 2015 | Research Publications

Translated from Dutch

Author(s):

  • Martijn de Groot
  • Bart Timmers,
  • Thea Kooiman MSc
  • Miriam van Ittersum

Abstract:

Quantified Self stands for the self-measuring person. The number of people entering the healthcare process with self-generated health data will grow in the coming years. Different types of activity trackers and health applications for smartphones make it relatively easy to collect personal data about exercise, nutrition, sleep, heart rate, menstrual cycle, etc. More and more patients will take this type of data to the doctor. It is therefore advisable to familiarize yourself with what self-measurement technology is available and what the quality, applicability or even generalizability of the data is like. In this contribution we explain the background of Quantified Self, we put it in a broader perspective of technological developments and we will say something about the sense and nonsense of self-measurements. The focus will be on Quantified Self with regard to health and lifestyle.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12414-015-0077-2

References:
  1. Groot M de, Timmers B, Braber M den. De zelfmetende mens. Medisch Contact. 2014 Aug;35:1618–20.
  2. Wolf G. Data driven life. New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/magazine/02self-measurement-t.html) geraadpleegd op 28 april 2010.
  3. Geraadpleegd via http://www.quantifiedself.com op 5 augustus 2015.
  4. Geraadpleegd via http://www.qsinstitute.org op 5 augustus 2015.
  5. Cornelissen J. Zorg en thuis technologie. Geraadpleegd viahttp://ic25.blogspot.nl/2011/12/diagnose-apparatuur-voor-zelfmeten-en.html op 5 augustus 2015.
  6. Case MA, Burwick HA, Volpp KG, Patel MS. Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. JAMA. 2015;313(6):625–6.CAS Article PubMed  Google Scholar 
  7. Kooiman TJM, Dontje ML, Sprenger SR, Krijnen WP, Schans CP van der, Groot M de. Reliability and Validity of ten consumer activity trackers. BMC Sports science, Medicine and Rehabilitation (accepted for publication on August 4, 2015).
  8. Ferguson T, Rowlands AV, Olds T, Maher C. The validity of consumer-level, activity monitrs in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;27:12–42. Google Scholar 
  9. Lee JM, Kim Y, Welk GJ. Validity of consumer-based physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(9):1840–8.Article PubMed  Google Scholar 
  10. Dontje ML, Groot M de, Lengton RR, Schans CP van der, Krijnen WP. Measuring steps with the Fitbit activity tracker: an inter-device reliability study. J Med Eng Technol. 2015;39(5):286–90.Article PubMed  Google Scholar 
  11. Geraadpleegd via http://www.gfk.com/nl/news-and-events/press-room/press-releases/paginas/evenveel-nederlanders-met-tablet-als-vaste-computer.aspx op 5 augustus 2015.
  12. Geraadpleegd via http://mobihealthnews.com/44828/small-survey-most-physicians-discuss-apps-wearables-with-patients/ op 5 augustus 2015.
  13. NHG. Protocol Thuisbloeddrukmeting. Utrecht: Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap; 2013.
  14. Groot M de. Quantified Self, Quantified Us, Quantified Other. Digitale Zorggids 2014. Geraadpleegd via http://www.digitalezorggids.nl/blog/quantified-self-quantified-us-quantified-other op 5 augustus 2015.
  15. Groot M de, Wouden JM van der, Hell EA van, Nieweg MB. Evidence-based practice for individuals or groups: let’s make a difference. Perspect Med Educ. 2013;2(4):216–21.PubMed Central Article PubMed  Google Scholar 
  16. Erich M, Blom M. High tech meets business, De economische impact van technologie voor sectoren, organisaties en mensen. ING Economisch Bureau; 2015 (https://www.ing.nl/media/ING_EBZ_Hightech-meets-business_tcm162–86486.pdf).