| Literature DB >> 32346502 |
Abstract
Smart technologies present numerous opportunities for enhancing mobile health care. However, some concerns regarding the viability of smart technology applications must be addressed. This study investigated these concerns by reviewing the current practices of smart technology applications to mobile health care. As a result, five factors critical to the applicability of a smart technology to mobile health care are identified, and the fuzzy geometric mean-fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FGM-FAHP) approach is proposed to assess the relative importance levels of the identified factors. The experimental results showed that the three most critical factors identified include: (a) the relaxation of the related medical laws; (b) unobtrusiveness; and (c) the precise need and situation of a user. Accordingly, approximately 44%, 26%, and 15% of the budget should be allocated to the realization of the three critical factors, respectively. In addition, the challenges involved and opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of existing applications are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; Fuzzy geometric mean; Health care; Mobile; Smart technology
Year: 2020 PMID: 32346502 PMCID: PMC7185808 DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.02.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Policy Technol ISSN: 2211-8837
Classification of smart technologies and systems.
| Category | Smart Technologies and Systems |
|---|---|
| Wirelessly connected smart systems | Internet of things, smart TV, smart baby monitors, smart phones, smart watches, smart wallets, smart motion sensors, smart smoke alarms, smart glasses, spectacles, and contact lenses, smart body analyzers, smart thermostats, smart cities |
| Interactive smart systems | Smart tables, smart boards, smart burglar alarms, smart fridges, smart cookers, smart washing machines, smart light bulbs, smart meters, smart plugs |
| Predictive smart systems | Smart hard drives, smart connected vehicles, smart buildings, smart traffic lights, smart surveillance cameras, smart toilets, smart wigs, smart farms, smart grids, smart shelves |
| Intelligent smart systems | Smart WiFi, smart mobile services, smart restart, smart defense, smart pajamas, smart vacuum cleaners, smart travel cards, smart wheelchairs, sleep-monitoring systems |
Smart technology applications suitable for mobile environments.
| Reference | Suitable Smart Technology Applications |
|---|---|
| Chen | Smart mobile services, smart phones, smart watches, smart connected vehicles, smart smoke alarms, smart motion sensors |
| Demirkan | Biosensors, wearable devices, intelligent software agents. |
| Chen and Chiu | Smart watches, smart motion sensors, smart body analyzers, smart connected vehicles, smart wigs, smart mobile services, smart defense technologies, smart wheelchairs |
The checking results.
| Smart Technology | Requirement | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unobtrusive | Interconnected | Adaptable | Dynamic | Embedded | Intelligent | |
| Smart clothes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Smart glasses | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Smart watches | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Smart phones | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Smart motion sensors | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
| Smart smoke alarms | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
| Smart body analyzers | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Smart connected vehicles | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Smart toilets | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
| Smart wigs | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Smart mobile services | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Smart defense technologies | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Smart wheelchairs | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
The classification of functions supported by mobile health care apps.
| Target Population | Functions | References |
|---|---|---|
| Consumers or patients | ● Medication compliance | Chen |
| Health care professionals | ● Alerts | Sarasohn-Kahn |
| System designer or administrator | ● Resource and communication abstraction | Amin et al. |
Fig. 1The percentages of the five types of apps.
The random index.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.9 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 | 1.51 | 1.48 | 1.56 | 1.57 | 1.59 |
The results of pairwise comparisons.
| Pairwise Comparison Results | |
|---|---|
| 1 | (i) “Unobtrusiveness” is considerably more important than “supporting online social networking”. |
| 2 | (i) “Unobtrusiveness” is slightly more important than “supporting online social networking”. |
| 3 | (i) “Unobtrusiveness” is extremely more important than “supporting online social networking”. |
| 4 | (i) “Supporting online social networking” is as important as “unobtrusiveness”. |
| 5 | (i) “Unobtrusiveness” is slightly more important than “supporting online social networking”. |
| 6 | (i) “Unobtrusiveness” is slightly more important than “supporting online social networking”. |
The aggregation results using FGM (only positive comparisons are shown).
| TFN | |
|---|---|
| (1.29, 3.09, 4.35) | |
| (3.26, 5.45, 7.52) | |
| (0.93, 2.34, 4.14) | |
| (2.08, 4.22, 6.26) | |
| (0.92, 2.21, 3.56) | |
| (1.10, 2.04, 3.70) | |
| (2.38, 4.57, 6.64) | |
| (0.75, 2.01, 3.35) | |
| (0.69, 1.40, 2.43) | |
| (4.22, 6.26, 8.28) |
Fig. 2Consistency improved after aggregation.
Fig. 3Comparing the aggregation results with those derived by the experts.
The aggregation results after modification.
| TFN | |
|---|---|
| (1.29, 3.09, 4.35) | |
| (3.02, 5.23, 7.30) | |
| (0.93, 2.34, 4.14) | |
| (2.08, 4.22, 6.26) | |
| (0.75, 2.01, 3.35) | |
| (1.10, 2.04, 3.70) | |
| (2.38, 4.57, 6.64) | |
| (0.75, 2.01, 3.35) | |
| (0.69, 1.40, 2.43) | |
| (4.22, 6.26, 8.28) |
Fig. 4The optimal allocation of budget.
Fig. 5The effect of the number of experts on the fuzzy consistency ratio.
Results of applying various methods.
| FGM-FEA | FGM-ACO-FWA | The Proposed Methodology | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.30 | (0.15, 0.30, 0.43) | (0.13, 0.29, 0.52) | |
| 0.18 | (0.07, 0.14, 0.27) | (0.06, 0.14, 0.32) | |
| 0.28 | (0.16, 0.33, 0.47) | (0.14, 0.34, 0.55) | |
| 0.00 | (0.03, 0.05, 0.08) | (0.02, 0.04, 0.11) | |
| 0.25 | (0.10, 0.19, 0.36) | (0.09, 0.18, 0.41) |