Search

In this editorial introduction, we explore how digital health is being explored at the intersection of sociology of health and science and technology studies (STS). We suggest that socio‐material approaches and practice theories provide a shared space within which productive tensions between sociology of health and STS can continue. These tensions emerge around the long‐standing challenges of avoiding technological determinism while maintaining a clear focus on the materiality and agency of technologies and recognising enduring sets of relations that emerge in new digital health practices while avoiding social determinism. The papers in this Special Issue explore diverse fields of healthcare (e.g. reproductive health, primary care, diabetes management, mental health) within which heterogenous technologies (e.g. health apps, mobile platforms, smart textiles, time‐lapse imaging) are becoming increasingly embedded. By synthesising the main arguments and contributions in each paper, we elaborate on four key dimensions within which digital technologies create ambivalence and (re)configure health practices. First, promissory digital health highlights contradictory virtues within discourses that configure digital health. Second, (re)configuring knowledge outlines ambivalences of navigating new information environments and handling quantified data. Third, (re)configuring connectivity explores the relationships that evolve through digital networks. Fourth, (re)configuring control explores how new forms of power are inscribed and handled within algorithmic decision‐making in health. We argue that these dimensions offer fruitful perspectives along which digital health can be explored across a range of technologies and health practices. We conclude by highlighting applications, methods and dimensions of digital health that require further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of digital health often remains an empty signifier, employed strategically for a vast array of demands to attract investments and legitimise reforms. Rather scarce are attempts to develop digital health towards an analytic notion that provides avenues for understanding the ongoing transformations in health care. This article develops a sociomaterial approach to understanding digital health, showing how digitalisation affords practices of health and medicine to cope with and utilise the combined and interrelated challenges of increases in quantification (data‐intensive medicine), varieties of connectivity (telemedicine), and unprecedented modes of instantaneous calculation (algorithmic medicine). This enables an engagement with questions about what forms of knowledge, relationships and control are produced through different manifestations of digital health. The paper then sets out, in detail, three innovative strategies that can guide explorations and negotiations into the type of care we want to achieve through digital transformation. These strategies embed Karen Barad's concept of agential cuts suggesting that responsible cuts towards the materialisation of digital health require participatory efforts that recognise the affordances and the generativity of technology developments. Through the sociomaterial approach presented in this article, we aim to lay the foundations to reorient and sensitise innovation and care processes in order to create new possibilities and value‐centric approaches for promoting health in digital societies as opposed to promoting digital health per se. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically explores the research and development of 'digital phenotyping', which broadly refers to the idea that digital data can measure and predict people's mental health as well as their potential risk for mental ill health. Despite increasing research and efforts to digitally track and predict ill mental health, there has been little sociological and critical engagement with this field. This paper aims to fill this gap by introducing digital phenotyping to the social sciences. We explore the origins of digital phenotyping, the concept of the digital phenotype and its potential for benefit, linking these to broader developments within the field of 'mental health sensing'. We then critically discuss the technology, offering three critiques. First, that there may be assumptions of normality and bias present in the use of algorithms; second, we critique the idea that digital data can act as a proxy for social life; and third that the often biological language employed in this field risks reifying mental health problems. Our aim is not to discredit the scientific work in this area, but rather to call for scientists to remain reflexive in their work, and for more social science engagement in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade, the figure of the algorithm has emerged as a matter of concern in discussions about the current state of the healthcare sector and what it may become. While analytical focus has mainly centred on 'algorithmic entities', the paper argues that we have to move our analytical focus towards 'algorithmic assemblages', if we are to understand how advanced algorithms will affect health care. Departing from this figure, the paper explores how an algorithmic system, designed to 'take on' the role of a physiotherapist in physical rehabilitation programmes in Denmark, was designed and made to work in practice. On the basis of ethnographic fieldwork, it is demonstrated that the algorithmic system is a fragile accomplishment and outcome of negotiations between the imaginaries embedded in its design and the ongoing adjustments of IT workers, patients and professionals. Drawing on recent work on the fragility and incompleteness of algorithms, it is suggested that the algorithmic system needs to be creatively 'repaired' to build and maintain enabling connections between bodies in‐motion and professionals in arrangements of care. The paper concludes by addressing accountability for the workings of algorithmic systems in medical practice, suggesting that such questions must also be discussed in relation to encounters between algorithmic imaginaries, health professionals and patients, and the various forms of 'repair work' needed to enable algorithmic systems to work in practice. Such acts of accountability cannot be understood within an ethics of transparency, but are better thought of as an ethics of 'response‐ability', given the need to intervene and engage with the open‐ended outcomes of algorithmic systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 21st century has witnessed the emergence of in silico reproduction alongside the familiar in vitro reproduction (e.g. IVF), as increasingly large and automatically‐generated data sets have come to play an instrumental role in assisted reproduction. The article addresses this datafication of reproduction by analysing time‐lapse embryo imaging, a key data‐driven technology for embryo selection in IVF cycles. It discusses the new forms of knowledge and value creation enabled by data‐driven embryo selection and positions this technology as a harbinger of a wider datafication of (reproductive) health. By analysing the new ways of seeing embryos with 'in silico vision,' the 'data generativity' of developing embryos and the patenting of embryo selection algorithms, I argue that this datafied method of embryo selection may not just result in more or less 'IVF success,' but also affects the conceptualisation and commercialisation of the assisted reproductive process. In doing so, I highlight how the datafication of reproduction both reflects and reinforces a consolidating trend in the fertility sector—characterised by mergers resulting in larger fertility chains, online platforms organising fertility care and expanded portfolios of companies aiming to cover each step of the IVF cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Time can be thought of as a resource that people need for good health. Healthy behaviour, accessing health services, working, resting and caring all require time. Like other resources, time is socially shaped, but its relevance to health and health inequality is yet to be established. Drawing from sociology and political economy, we set out the theoretical basis for two measures of time relevant to contemporary, market-based societies. We measure amount of time spent on care and work (paid and unpaid) and the intensity of time, which refers to rushing, effort and speed. Using data from wave 9 (N = 9177) of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics of Australia Survey we found that time poverty (> 80 h per week on care and work) and often or always rushing are barriers to physical activity and rushing is associated with poorer self-rated and mental health. Exploring their social patterning, we find that time-poor people have higher incomes and more time control. In contrast, rushing is linked to being a woman, lone parenthood, disability, lack of control and work-family conflicts. We supply a methodology to support quantitative investigations of time, and our findings underline time's dimensionality, social distribution and potential to influence health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]