Here I am rambling about big data and obesity treatment.
My favorite question: What's the most promising technology for obesity treatment?
My answer: humans.
If you're in New York on September 16, come see me ramble in person at the New York Academy of Sciences conference on"Big Data, Consumer Technology, and the Obesity Epidemic: Emerging Science and Ethical Considerations."
No matter which candidate you support, I think we can agree on this: our politicians have issues, but they’re not discussing them.
Duke’s cool new podcast, Glad You Asked, has folks offer ideas about what’s missing from our political playpen. Here are my thoughts:
TL; DR: Good policy beats medicine.
Yes, it is a slide deck, but it’s also one of the most eagerly anticipated collections of facts in Silicon Valley. Mary Meeker is ready with her 2016 internet trends report, which she is delivering today at this year’s Code Conference.
Is it problematic that I enjoy flipping through all 213 pages of this thing? Don’t answer that.
Part of our ongoing, intermittent, and highly speculative series about what’s next in digital health
Invisible apps are what’s next in digital health. These are some of the best.
We’ve yet to see many invisible apps for digital health. But they’re clearly what’s next. As design focused as I am, it’s becoming increasingly clear that we can develop usable, sticky apps without graphical interfaces (there’s a trend to call these no-UI apps, but graphics do not an interface make).
Our studies show that we can achieve 12-month engagement of 84% engagement with a health app that’s delivered via interactive voice response and text. This means that 84% of participants will text or voice us at least weekly for a year.
Compare that to my rule of 70 which, in part says, most of your app’s users won’t come back for a second try.
Plus, these invisible apps have huge reach (91% of us text), lower cost (thanks Twilio), are easier to code (notifications APIs rock), and are easier on the MVP budget.
The New York Times blog, Fixes, featured one of my favorite organizations today. Girl Trek is the best public health program you haven’t heard about [yet]. Look, I’m a scientist, a wonk, a tinkerer. I’m technically inclined, and quantitatively oriented. I’m hyperbolic and excitable, but I’m not easily inspired.
But GirlTrek inspires me [big time].
Here’s a gross simplification — recruit nearly 60k women nationally, women who are mostly sedentary, who lead busy lives and who don’t [yet] take enough time for themselves. Link them with groups, comprised of women, similar and dissimilar, of all ages and backgrounds. Then, motivate them to walk. And walk. And keep walking.
Physical inactivity is one of the most pressing public health crises of our time. And yet, many of our public health efforts haven’t gotten the population moving. This is especially true in high risk groups, like Black women.
GirlTrek is different. They reach, engage, motivate, and inspire with an approach that’s organic, culturally resonant, and technologically sophisticated. My take?
“We’ve spent an enormous amount of money on research-based approaches to obesity prevention and treatment, and almost none of them have worked with black women,” says Gary G. Bennett, a professor at Duke University and a leading researcher on obesity. “One of the key predictors of positive treatment outcomes is really high levels of engagement. I’ve been doing work on obesity as it affects medically vulnerable populations for 15 years, and I don’t know of anything in the scientific community or any public health campaigns that have been able to produce and sustain engagement around physical activity for black women like GirlTrek does. Not even close.”
And, it’s working.
Their secret? Focusing on what matters to women today. Not the health benefits that might accrue in the far future.
“It wasn’t about looking good or weight loss or fitting into a certain type of clothing,” she recalled. “It wasn’t, ‘Hey, you fat person, you need to do this or you’re going to die.’ It was, ‘I love you and I want you to love yourself enough to invest in 30 minutes a day, to walk yourself to freedom like Harriet Tubman did.’ And that spoke deeply for me because my life work is showing up for other people, but I wasn’t showing up for myself.”
We researchers can occasionally have a bit of hubris (!) about what it takes to improve public health. But the data don’t lie. For some of these issues, we need bright, creative, and novel ideas that can work — at scale.
Look no further than GirlTrek.
By now, you’re probably tired of hearing that “data is (sic) the new oil.”
It’s true, but unlike oil, data’s value is on the rise.
Apparently that’s also true for old data. There’s word today that, Viant, the parent company of Myspace (yes, that one) has been acquired by Time, Inc.
In buying MySpace, Viant acquired the data of more than 1 billion registered users. While not all of those people may have kept the same email address from their MySpace days, it still has an enviable database of first-party data….First-party data is considered the holy grail when it comes to advertising online because it means marketers know they are serving ads to the actual consumer they want to be targeting, rather than making probabilistic bets based on browsing behaviour…this gives Time an immediate leg-up … and provides a first-party data set that, in Time’s own words, “rivals industry leaders Facebook and Google.”
Two thoughts here:
Our data are the gifts that keep on giving. We’re increasingly less likely to churn email addresses and social media credentials, allowing even old data to be linked to what we do today. We have growing comfort with data sharing. Concerns about data privacy are virtually nonexistent — particularly if you grew up in the Facebook age. And there’s revenue to be gained in selling our data (who reads terms of service anyway). Many will be surprised that Myspace still exists, but we shouldn’t be surprised that our data still exists to provide value, long after we’ve moved on.
I’ll be at the University at Buffalo speaking about our work this Thursday at 12pm. Come say hi!
Many American companies have been using BMI as a shortcut to assess their employee’s health status? This approach makes sense, right? Public health agencies often detail the severe health consequences of overweight and obesity. The US Public Health Service Task Force guidelines state that patients with obesity should receive intensive weight loss counseling. Even the American Medical Association calls obesity a “disease.”
Despite this, a sizable number of those with high BMIs have completely normal cardiometabolic functioning. In other words: they’re overweight/obese and otherwise and healthy.
This finding is being interpreted as “the final nail in the coffin” for BMI. There’s no question in my mind that BMIs demise would be welcome to many (in my experience, people love to assail BMI as non-specific, not relevant to specific groups, and a poor measure of fatness — some days, I agree).
But, I suspect the reports of BMIs demise are greatly exaggerated.
The idea of being metabolically healthy while obese is not a new one. Although the size of the metabolically healthy population is a mater of some debate, their existence is well accepted.
But here’s the thing that the recent study didn’t consider: time.
There’s some evidence that people’s likelihood of being obese and healthy drops as they age. Put another way, wait enough time and obesity will start having negative health effects. There’s also emerging data suggesting that the time spent in obesity — literally the number of years that someone spends in an obese state — is independently associated with negative outcomes. This is a particularly potent health risk since very (very) few people with obesity ultimately lose weight (and keep the weight off).
So, it’s true: companies that want to quickly assess employee health probably shouldn’t use BMI. But, if they want to make predictions about future health risks, BMI might be a helpful tool.
I was excited to hear that Sandro Galea took the mantle at the Boston University School of Public Health. I’m more excited that he’s using that perch to shape discussions about how we can improve the public’s health.
Far too much university research and funding, Dr. Galea said, is dedicated to making increasingly precise tallies for relatively minor issues. Instead of paying researchers to count how many blueberries per day may cut the risk of heart attacks, Dr. Galea said, universities and their funders could more systematically identify and tackle the root causes of social problems — such as tolerance of violent attitudes, indifference to environmental concerns, and large and persistent gaps in wealth, education, and economic opportunity.