OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, New York, USA.
OMICS. 2021 Apr;25(4):249-254. doi: 10.1089/omi.2021.0020. Epub 2021 Apr 1.
Digital health is a rapidly emerging field that offers several promising potentials: health care delivery remotely, in urban and rural areas, in any time zone, and in times of pandemics and ecological crises. Digital health encompasses electronic health, computing science, big data, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things, to name but a few technical components. Digital health is part of a vision for systems medicine. The advances in digital health have been, however, uneven and highly variable across communities, countries, medical specialties, and societal contexts. This article critically examines the determinants of digital health (DDH). DDH describes and critically responds to inequities and differences in digital health theory and practice across people, places, spaces, and time. DDH is not limited to studying variability in design and access to digital technologies. DDH is situated within a larger context of the political determinants of health. Hence, this article presents an analysis of DDH, as seen through political science, and the feminist studies of technology and society. A feminist lens would strengthen systems-driven, historically and critically informed governance for DDH. This would be a timely antidote against unchecked destructive/extractive governance narratives (e.g., technocracy and patriarchy) that produce and reproduce the health inequities. Moreover, feminist framing of DDH can help cultivate epistemic competence to detect and reject false equivalences in how we understand the emerging digital world(s). False equivalence, very common in the current pandemic and post-truth era, is a type of flawed reasoning in decision-making where equal weight is given to arguments with concrete material evidence, and those that are conjecture, untrue, or unjust. A feminist conceptual lens on DDH would help remedy what I refer to in this article as "the normative deficits" in science and technology policy that became endemic with the rise of neoliberal governance since the 1980s in particular. In this context, it is helpful to recall the feminist writer Ursula K. Le Guin. Le Guin posed "what if?" questions, to break free from oppressive narratives such as patriarchy and re-imagine technology futures. It is time to envision an emancipated, equitable, and more democratic world by asking "what if we lived in a feminist world?" That would be truly awesome, for everyone, women and men, children, youth, and future generations, to steer digital technologies and the new field of DDH toward broadly relevant, ethical, experiential, democratic, and socially responsive health outcomes.
数字健康是一个迅速崛起的领域,具有许多有前途的潜力:在城市和农村地区、任何时区、在大流行病和生态危机期间远程提供医疗保健。数字健康涵盖了电子健康、计算科学、大数据、人工智能和物联网等技术组件。数字健康是系统医学愿景的一部分。然而,数字健康的进步在社区、国家、医学专业和社会背景之间存在不平衡且差异巨大。本文批判性地考察了数字健康的决定因素(DDH)。DDH 描述并批判性地回应了不同人群、地点、空间和时间在数字健康理论和实践方面的不平等和差异。DDH 不仅限于研究数字技术设计和获取方面的可变性。DDH 位于健康政治决定因素的更大背景下。因此,本文通过政治学和技术与社会的女性主义研究来呈现对 DDH 的分析。女性主义视角将加强系统驱动的、具有历史和批判性的数字健康治理。这将是对抗不受控制的破坏性/剥削性治理叙事(例如,技术统治论和父权制)的及时解毒剂,这些叙事产生并再现了健康不平等。此外,DDH 的女性主义框架可以帮助培养认识能力,以检测和拒绝我们理解新兴数字世界的方式中的虚假等同。虚假等同在当前大流行和后真相时代非常普遍,是一种在决策中给予具有具体物质证据的论点和那些推测、不真实或不公正的论点同等权重的有缺陷的推理。DDH 的女性主义概念视角将有助于纠正我在本文中提到的科学和技术政策中的“规范缺陷”,这些缺陷在 20 世纪 80 年代特别是新自由主义治理兴起后变得普遍存在。在这种情况下,回想一下女性主义作家厄休拉·K·勒奎恩(Ursula K. Le Guin)的话是有帮助的。勒奎恩提出了“如果……会怎样?”的问题,以摆脱父权制等压迫性叙事,并重新想象技术的未来。现在是时候通过问“如果我们生活在一个女性主义世界会怎样?”来设想一个解放、公平和更民主的世界了。这将是非常棒的,对每个人来说,无论是女性还是男性,孩子、青年和后代,都可以引导数字技术和新的 DDH 领域朝着广泛相关、道德、经验、民主和对社会有响应的健康结果发展。