This study aims to compare and contrast how specific information health technologies (IHTs) have been debated, how they have proliferated, and what they have enabled in Germany’s and England’s healthcare systems. For this a discourse analysis was undertaken that specifically focussed on future-scenarios articulated in policy documents and strategy papers released by relevant actors from both healthcare systems. The study reveals that the way IHTs have been debated and how they have proliferated depends on country-specific regulatory structures, their respective values, actors’ and institutions’ organized interests, and the status of health professionals. These conditions have enabled IHTs to promote a new and similar concept of patienthood in both countries, although they tend to affect practitioners’ practices more dramatically in England. The conclusion is drawn that with the usage of IHTs, healthcare systems reproduced existing patterns of health provision while also enabling a sort of convergence. Future research should investigate whether the new concept of patienthood emerging in both welfare states actually suits patients and professionals needs and requirements.

Innovative Gesundheitstechnik erfreut sich einer großen Popularität: Viele Entscheidungsträger im Gesundheitswesen erwarten, dass mit Hilfe von Telemedizin und anderen Technologien aktuelle Herausforderungen des Medizinsektors bewältigt werden können. Thomas Mathar widmet sich diesem Thema aus der Perspektive der ethnographischen Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung (Science & Technology Studies). Am Beispiel von Telemonitoring-Lösungen für Patienten mit chronischer Herzinsuffizienz untersucht er die praktischen Konsequenzen solcher Gesundheitstechnologien sowohl für Pflegekräfte und Ärzte als auch für Patienten.

The cause-and-effect relationship between incentives and market research response rates is well documented. In general, we understand that - mediated by factors such as privacy and difficulty - the greater the compensation offered to participants, the greater propensity for task completion. However, there is little understanding of how the way in which an incentive is communicated impacts results. We believe studying this field will help insight industry practitioners who are often challenged by limited or fixed incentive budgets. By exploring and ranking framing methods, we aim to recommend to researchers the tactical options that will maximise return on investment. In this initial exploration, we have narrowed framing choices to a set identified by the field of behavioural economics. In particular, we investigate the relative impact of: (1) financial incentives, (2) the endowment effect, (3) social proof, (4) altruism and, (5) financial incentives plus loss aversion. These conditions can be considered to broadly fit within one of three categories: (a) financial incentives alone, (b) behavioural principles alone, (c) financial incentives plus behavioural principles. To replicate the real-world challenges of insight professionals, this was tested in an experimental design that sought to recruit existing Aegon customers into a new research panel. The experimental case study format also lends itself to high volumes. The results of this study are based on 91,289 recruitment emails delivered to Aegon customers across various weekday mornings. Each email contained either neutral information regarding the incentive to join - the opportunity to win up to £250 - or the same message framed using one of the experimental methods in test. Messages were repeated both in the subject line and the email body. Results were measured and analysed at the points of: (A) email open, (B) email click, (C) conversion as defined by screener completion, (D) conversion as defined by panel account created, and (E) engagement as defined by completing at least one task on the panel eligible for a point reward within 3 months of signup. Additionally, the unsubscribe rate was measured and compared across all messages. Prior to the launch of the study, our hypotheses were that email communications which utitlised the endowment effect, social proof or altruism would lead to higher conversion rates than messages regarding incentivisation. Further, we hypothesised that emails which utilised both financial incentives plus loss aversion framing in an additive capacity would deliver the highest conversion rate. Our analysis led to a rejection of all hypotheses. Ultimately, it was concluded that none of the tested framing effects performed significantly better, as per chi-squared tests, than the financial incentive group across open rate, click rate, conversion rate or engagement rate. However, the addition of loss aversion performed on par with the incentive only group for panel engagement. Further, the use of loss aversion, altruism and the endowment effect all led to significantly lower unsubscribe rates than the incentive only group. This led to a nuanced conclusion which surmised that the loss aversion tactic, when used in an additive capacity to a financial incentive, appears to offer the most balanced risk profile for research professionals, whilst the endowment effect, social proof and altruism offer moderate to worse risk profiles. Finally, we highlight the need for more proof in this field - suggesting that future efforts replicate the study with a general population sample or non-financial services case studies.

No abstract

The shift to prevention and health promotion is an example of how policy makers aim to rationalise and organise both health systems and patients' health practices. By applying a perspective from empirical science & technology studies (STS), based on qualitative research methods, the chapters of this book present a view behind the scenes and zoom into the micropolitics of prevention and health promotion. They analyse how patients are framed as being »at risk«, how preventative regimes shape medical practices, and what its practical consequences are in patients' everyday lives. This makes the insights of this book relevant for prevention and health promotion practitioners, public health policy-makers and researchers.