Imagine this: You walk into a doctors office, a doctor you have never seen before. You begin to tell your doctor about your health history. All of a sudden he/she stops you, turns to the computer, presses some buttoms and Voila! Your whole health history is right there, on the screen. Every lab test, every infection, allergy, every MRI done...it is all there.
Can you imagine the potential benefits of this? Drastically reduced medical errors, amount of time saved, not having to call some obscure office to locate the patients' medical record (which must be processed and then will be sent over).
Such a system is becoming a reality now. A system where all medical facilities all over the country, heck, even all over the world, are linked. Every patients medical history, stored in a neat little folder on the computer, that can be accessed anywhere, at any time, by any physician, with just a press of a button.
Health IT is indeed promising. Yet, getting these systems to "talk" has been a bit difficult. With increasing competition from different IT companies, it is difficult to implement one single system throughout an entire network of healthcare providers. Yet, despite these challenges, it is important to pursue such a system, as the benefits are great.
Telemedicine is also another promising venture. Being able to talk to a doctor through the computer, instead of having to wait in an office, is very promising. Of course, this system does not offer the benefits of actually being able to see the patient in person, but can be used for follow-up assignments and the like.
But how to implement such a system for communities that do not use the computer frequently (such as the old and the poor)? An idea brought up in class was to educate community leaders on how to use the computer and webcam. These leaders can then spread the knowledge of this innovation to everyone in the community.
Indeed, we live in exciting times. It is up to us to harness the vast potential of technology to improve communities around the world.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Technology and Innovation
It is obvious that technological innovations are being produced and created at a dazzling rate. These technologies abound and are drastically changing the way we live our lives. Yet, how do we get these technologies to the people who need them and how do we ensure proper integration?
The answer is biopartnering and public private partnerships. Increasingly, the fields of biology and business are being integrated to form what is called "biobusiness". The biological/scientific sector is in charge of creating the technologies while the business sector is important to market and deliver these technologies.
Yet, how do we deliver technology to those who are poor? The corporate sector is surely to be hesitant to deliver such technologies (they want to make a profit!). The solution is public private partnerships: The public sector, which is interested in the common good, partners with the private sector, which has the technology. There are difficulties, however, in establishing these partnerships. Intellectual propery rights must be respected. Navigating through the various legal issues in implementing these technologies, especially in developing regions, can be challenging.
The goal is to create integrated partnerships. When both the public and private sector have a vested interest in the success of the application of the technology, the endeavor will be more successful! To create such opportunities, it is important to research the types of alliances that are sustainable.
Lastly, it is important to monitor the implemenation of such technologies. What is the cost effectiveness? Is it economically viable for the country? Is it effective and producing results?
These alliances can ensure that everyone in the world has access to technology that can drastically improve their lives.
The answer is biopartnering and public private partnerships. Increasingly, the fields of biology and business are being integrated to form what is called "biobusiness". The biological/scientific sector is in charge of creating the technologies while the business sector is important to market and deliver these technologies.
Yet, how do we deliver technology to those who are poor? The corporate sector is surely to be hesitant to deliver such technologies (they want to make a profit!). The solution is public private partnerships: The public sector, which is interested in the common good, partners with the private sector, which has the technology. There are difficulties, however, in establishing these partnerships. Intellectual propery rights must be respected. Navigating through the various legal issues in implementing these technologies, especially in developing regions, can be challenging.
The goal is to create integrated partnerships. When both the public and private sector have a vested interest in the success of the application of the technology, the endeavor will be more successful! To create such opportunities, it is important to research the types of alliances that are sustainable.
Lastly, it is important to monitor the implemenation of such technologies. What is the cost effectiveness? Is it economically viable for the country? Is it effective and producing results?
These alliances can ensure that everyone in the world has access to technology that can drastically improve their lives.
Environment, Sustainability, and Global Health
We all know, of course, that our physical environment is changing. Global warming is slowly causing temperatures to creep up. Whole ecosystems are being destroyed. Increasingly, damage to the environment is leading to harmful health effects.
"Our ability to live is what is at stake" says Al Gore, in his award winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". The Arctic is experiencing melting at an alarming rate. If the ice caps are gone, sea levels would rise dramatically, flooding places like Florida and Shanghai. Al Gore then goes on to make an extremely valid point. We, right now, struggle when there is 100,000 refugees. With rising sea levels, he says, there would be over 100 million! This would cause enormous, unthinkable pressure on the world. How could we sustain ourselves?
Unfortunately, species are being eliminated at a rate that is 100 times faster than what it would be without human influence. Whole areas that used to be lush are now dry, barren, and infertile. Unfortunately, many of these areas are in developing countries, such as Sub Saharan Africa.
What is the answer to this? How can we reconcile the needs of human populations while at the same time protecting the environments and other species? The answer is sustainable developments. Concepts such as the carrying capacity (the amount of individuals an area can sustain) and the ecological footprint (the amount and type of resources needed to sustain such an area) are important to recognize when carrying out such an endeavor.
To go about doing this, it is important to build the correct infrastructure and develop the right policies. Programs that empower women can directly have an impact on the environment. Once women are empowered, they will influence and care for their families. Once families feel secure, people will start having less children. Correcting the human population crisis is one way to improve the environment.
My question, and struggle is this. Yes, development is great. Yet, with increased development, I, unfortunately tend to see a trend of increased car use and construction. For example, with the IT boom in Bangalore, India, the number of cars on the road has increased dramatically. There are more homes being built and more buildings being constructed. These things can cause destruction of whole species and ecosystems, since buildings are being constructed on places that different animal species consider home. How can we reconcile human development while still protecting the environment? How can we live in harmony with nature and other creatures? Yes, things like good roads, etc. are great. Yet, the building of roads can often drive whole families of animals apart (especially if not done carefully). This is my struggle...
"Our ability to live is what is at stake" says Al Gore, in his award winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". The Arctic is experiencing melting at an alarming rate. If the ice caps are gone, sea levels would rise dramatically, flooding places like Florida and Shanghai. Al Gore then goes on to make an extremely valid point. We, right now, struggle when there is 100,000 refugees. With rising sea levels, he says, there would be over 100 million! This would cause enormous, unthinkable pressure on the world. How could we sustain ourselves?
Unfortunately, species are being eliminated at a rate that is 100 times faster than what it would be without human influence. Whole areas that used to be lush are now dry, barren, and infertile. Unfortunately, many of these areas are in developing countries, such as Sub Saharan Africa.
What is the answer to this? How can we reconcile the needs of human populations while at the same time protecting the environments and other species? The answer is sustainable developments. Concepts such as the carrying capacity (the amount of individuals an area can sustain) and the ecological footprint (the amount and type of resources needed to sustain such an area) are important to recognize when carrying out such an endeavor.
To go about doing this, it is important to build the correct infrastructure and develop the right policies. Programs that empower women can directly have an impact on the environment. Once women are empowered, they will influence and care for their families. Once families feel secure, people will start having less children. Correcting the human population crisis is one way to improve the environment.
My question, and struggle is this. Yes, development is great. Yet, with increased development, I, unfortunately tend to see a trend of increased car use and construction. For example, with the IT boom in Bangalore, India, the number of cars on the road has increased dramatically. There are more homes being built and more buildings being constructed. These things can cause destruction of whole species and ecosystems, since buildings are being constructed on places that different animal species consider home. How can we reconcile human development while still protecting the environment? How can we live in harmony with nature and other creatures? Yes, things like good roads, etc. are great. Yet, the building of roads can often drive whole families of animals apart (especially if not done carefully). This is my struggle...
Mind, Body, and Health
The mind, has a powerful control over our behavior and health. According to the Buddha, all that we are are a result of what we have thought. Indeed, the mental health has a significant effect on our well being and in the etiology of several physical ailments, such as diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and even cancer! Those who are depressed tend to consistently show higher rates of such diseases.
Mental health not only causes such diseases, but results in high numbers of suicides and agressive/violent events. Examining the case of the Virginia Tech shooter is a case in point. Thus, it is clear that mental health takes an extreme physical and emotional toll on our lives.
Mental health is so important to our well being and sense of vitality that the King of Bhutan has included the nations' mental health status as a measure for national success. He came up with the idea of GNH, or Gross National Happiness, which he felt was a better measure of the state of the country than something like GNP (Gross National Product). I found this concept very interesting. The United States currently has one of the highest GNPs in the world. Financially, the U.S., is, of course, quite stable (although we are going into a recession but thats besides the point!). Yet, would we, as a country, score very high on a GNH scale? I think not. Although several slides (such as ones shown in class) show the U.S. to be very "happy", I don't think we are. We see such high rates of mental disorders, stress, and unhappiness. People often work too hard, sleep too late, and can't spend enough time with their families. This is in stark contrast to the environment of a place like India (a country that I often visit, given that I have family there). Yes, India is ridiculously dirty. The electrical current will go off at random times of the day. Yet, people are HAPPY. Their minds are constantly busy. They are surrounded by their friends and family.
*Speaking of the mind being busy, I thought that Mark Krel/Dr. Shahi made a great/funny comment in class. They called mental disorders, such as depression, a product of "affluenza" (a pun on the word influenza of course). Their claim is that many people who are in the upper echelons of society may just have too much time on their hands which can lead to an "idle mind is the devil's workshop" scenario. I thought it was a particularly interesting point.
The goal of public health/global health activists is to create situations where people can lead full, satisfying lives. This will, indeed, bring down levels of preventable diseases and violent events.
My question to end this post is this: What is the most sustainable way to improve mental health in developing nations? Many people living in affluent countries often resort to pills to alleviate their mental status, such as anti-depressants and SSRI's. Is the delivery of these drugs a potential answer for developing countries? The culture of many countries that are considered "developing", such as India, still view mental illness as a taboo. How do we get the people in these countries to take up the cause of mental health?
Mental health not only causes such diseases, but results in high numbers of suicides and agressive/violent events. Examining the case of the Virginia Tech shooter is a case in point. Thus, it is clear that mental health takes an extreme physical and emotional toll on our lives.
Mental health is so important to our well being and sense of vitality that the King of Bhutan has included the nations' mental health status as a measure for national success. He came up with the idea of GNH, or Gross National Happiness, which he felt was a better measure of the state of the country than something like GNP (Gross National Product). I found this concept very interesting. The United States currently has one of the highest GNPs in the world. Financially, the U.S., is, of course, quite stable (although we are going into a recession but thats besides the point!). Yet, would we, as a country, score very high on a GNH scale? I think not. Although several slides (such as ones shown in class) show the U.S. to be very "happy", I don't think we are. We see such high rates of mental disorders, stress, and unhappiness. People often work too hard, sleep too late, and can't spend enough time with their families. This is in stark contrast to the environment of a place like India (a country that I often visit, given that I have family there). Yes, India is ridiculously dirty. The electrical current will go off at random times of the day. Yet, people are HAPPY. Their minds are constantly busy. They are surrounded by their friends and family.
*Speaking of the mind being busy, I thought that Mark Krel/Dr. Shahi made a great/funny comment in class. They called mental disorders, such as depression, a product of "affluenza" (a pun on the word influenza of course). Their claim is that many people who are in the upper echelons of society may just have too much time on their hands which can lead to an "idle mind is the devil's workshop" scenario. I thought it was a particularly interesting point.
The goal of public health/global health activists is to create situations where people can lead full, satisfying lives. This will, indeed, bring down levels of preventable diseases and violent events.
My question to end this post is this: What is the most sustainable way to improve mental health in developing nations? Many people living in affluent countries often resort to pills to alleviate their mental status, such as anti-depressants and SSRI's. Is the delivery of these drugs a potential answer for developing countries? The culture of many countries that are considered "developing", such as India, still view mental illness as a taboo. How do we get the people in these countries to take up the cause of mental health?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Session 5: Nutrition, Food Security, Health
Often times, when talking about nutrition, we do not bring in “the whole picture”. That is, we often say that people are undernourished because they cannot access food. The concept of food security, however, adds a dimension to this concept of nutrition. The concept of food security not only involves access, but distribution, production, and safety. Food may be accessible but may not be safe to eat. Or it may be that fertile land is available to produce such food, but that the agricultural sector does not have the proper tools to produce food. Without these things, individuals cannot be secure that safe healthy food is available to them.
Countries such as Africa are incredibly food insecure, for they are impacted not only in terms of access but, distribution, production, and safety. I gave a presentation on the delivery of technologies to resource poor farmers. Farmers in Africa do not have the tools available to make the most out of the land that is available to them. Making these technologies available to farmers can drastically increase the quantity of safe, healthy food that is available. Yet, the process of delivering these technologies is complicated, for one has to establish partnerships with the private companies that hold these technologies. In addition, the people using these technologies have to make sure that they are not infringing on the intellectual property of these companies.
Jocelyn gave an interesting presentation on obesity in the media. The article mentions that most media outlets portray obesity to be the result of poor nutrition and laziness. Yet, the media often neglects the role of the environment of the individual. For example, an individual may feel alienated in their surroundings, which could increase their feelings of depression, which can in turn lead to stress eating. This article advocates changing the environment to help alleviate the obesity epidemic.
Jocelyn’s presentation really got me thinking of the concept of food security. For example, living in a place where the majority of restaurants are of the fast food type can lead to food insecurity. Yes, this food is cheap and thus food is widely available to the individuals living in that area. Yet, this food is often unhealthy. Given that the food is of low quality, food security drastically decreases. Thus, most people do not think of the United States as a country that is ridden with issues of malnutrition and food insecurity. Yet, given the abundance of such unhealthy food available, I think food security is a big issue in this country.
Countries such as Africa are incredibly food insecure, for they are impacted not only in terms of access but, distribution, production, and safety. I gave a presentation on the delivery of technologies to resource poor farmers. Farmers in Africa do not have the tools available to make the most out of the land that is available to them. Making these technologies available to farmers can drastically increase the quantity of safe, healthy food that is available. Yet, the process of delivering these technologies is complicated, for one has to establish partnerships with the private companies that hold these technologies. In addition, the people using these technologies have to make sure that they are not infringing on the intellectual property of these companies.
Jocelyn gave an interesting presentation on obesity in the media. The article mentions that most media outlets portray obesity to be the result of poor nutrition and laziness. Yet, the media often neglects the role of the environment of the individual. For example, an individual may feel alienated in their surroundings, which could increase their feelings of depression, which can in turn lead to stress eating. This article advocates changing the environment to help alleviate the obesity epidemic.
Jocelyn’s presentation really got me thinking of the concept of food security. For example, living in a place where the majority of restaurants are of the fast food type can lead to food insecurity. Yes, this food is cheap and thus food is widely available to the individuals living in that area. Yet, this food is often unhealthy. Given that the food is of low quality, food security drastically decreases. Thus, most people do not think of the United States as a country that is ridden with issues of malnutrition and food insecurity. Yet, given the abundance of such unhealthy food available, I think food security is a big issue in this country.
Session 4: Changing Trends in Noncommunicable Diseases
Preventive Medicine. This is a “buzz phrase” that we are increasingly hearing in the news and other media outlets. Indeed, the world has seen a rise in noncommunicable, preventable diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease. Unfortunately, these diseases are often expensive to treat and cause significant morbidity and mortality.
Of course, many of these disease have a genetic component. Yet, it has recently been discovered that many of these diseases are preventable. For example, Dr. Shahi mentioned that when he was in medical school, contracting diabetes was something that was out of the individuals control. It is now known that exercise and diet can prevent as much as 80% of diabetes cases!
It is easy to think, however, that noncommunicable diseases are the burden of the rich and wealthy. As we learned from a wonderful presentation by Wilmin Lam, poor countries such as Africa, suffer from problems such as obesity and diabetes. In African culture (or at least in the study group about which Wilmin presented), many people believed that being large and overweight was a sign of health and thus was a marker for beauty.
I believe Wilmins presentation really is what made this class so interesting for me. We have heard, a thousand times, that countries such as the U.S. are suffering from an obesity/diabetes pandemic. Yet, other countries, such as Africa and South Asia, must not be neglected, as noncommunicable diseases can often significantly burden these countries as well.
Of course, many of these disease have a genetic component. Yet, it has recently been discovered that many of these diseases are preventable. For example, Dr. Shahi mentioned that when he was in medical school, contracting diabetes was something that was out of the individuals control. It is now known that exercise and diet can prevent as much as 80% of diabetes cases!
It is easy to think, however, that noncommunicable diseases are the burden of the rich and wealthy. As we learned from a wonderful presentation by Wilmin Lam, poor countries such as Africa, suffer from problems such as obesity and diabetes. In African culture (or at least in the study group about which Wilmin presented), many people believed that being large and overweight was a sign of health and thus was a marker for beauty.
I believe Wilmins presentation really is what made this class so interesting for me. We have heard, a thousand times, that countries such as the U.S. are suffering from an obesity/diabetes pandemic. Yet, other countries, such as Africa and South Asia, must not be neglected, as noncommunicable diseases can often significantly burden these countries as well.
Changing Trends in Communicable Diseases
During this session, Dr. Shahi presented a fascinating look at the different communicable diseases that afflict the world population. Unfortunately, such diseases disproportionately affect those countries that are poor and lack the resources to properly treat these disorders. In fact, most “rich” countries are suffering less from communicable diseases and more from noncommunicable, chronic diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease. Even when those who are well off contract communicable diseases, they die at a much lower rate than those who are poor.
To make things worse, many of the efforts to control communicable diseases in poor countries have focused on a select few diseases, such as HIV and Malaria. Unfortunately, there are other diseases that often occur that can cause severe damage but are often not the focus of prevention/treatment efforts. These include Chagas disease and Schistosomiasis.
We then went over epidemic, pandemics, and heard a wonderful presentation by Juleon regarding the history of communicable diseases.
My main question is, with the possibility of a pandemic of certain communicable diseases, such as SARS or Avian Flu, will poor countries disproportionately be affected? Will most of the funding and efforts go to eradicating such diseases in rich countries, while neglecting the poor countries? Since it is the rich countries that often provide such funding, I believe this to be very possible. How can we circumvent this situation? How can we make sure that everyone is protected from such threats?
To make things worse, many of the efforts to control communicable diseases in poor countries have focused on a select few diseases, such as HIV and Malaria. Unfortunately, there are other diseases that often occur that can cause severe damage but are often not the focus of prevention/treatment efforts. These include Chagas disease and Schistosomiasis.
We then went over epidemic, pandemics, and heard a wonderful presentation by Juleon regarding the history of communicable diseases.
My main question is, with the possibility of a pandemic of certain communicable diseases, such as SARS or Avian Flu, will poor countries disproportionately be affected? Will most of the funding and efforts go to eradicating such diseases in rich countries, while neglecting the poor countries? Since it is the rich countries that often provide such funding, I believe this to be very possible. How can we circumvent this situation? How can we make sure that everyone is protected from such threats?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)