Alex Howard (@digiphile) nails it this week on a Radar O'Reilly post "Shiny app syndrome and Gov 2.0. Why governments need to start with mobile sites, not native apps."
Howard writes on the new revamped Texas.gov website introduced at Govfresh Gov 2.0 conference in Manor, Texas. The state's included mobile application is only available as an Apple iPhone app. During the question answer session, Brownell Chalstrom from the audience questioned it's citizen accessibility. He suggested that government shouldn't spend taxpayer dollars on application development, rather release the data to the community and let the community of developers come up with the best solution. Mr. Chalstrom goes on further to suggest that the app should've been made into a web app, one that runs within any mobile browser.
Although the conference was framed for the government 2.0 audience, the "app" issue has a far deeper implication in the mobile health space. Thanks to the runoff success of Apple's iPhone, the public perception of what's functional, usable and deployable on mobile devices is being defined only as a downloadable "app". The idea that a mobile browser, using standards like HTML5, CSS3, and Javascript could come close to a downloadable version is not part of the policy conversation that healthcare information managers should be having.
Handset and software manufactures like iPhone iOS, Google's Android, Windows 7 and Blackberry would have you believe that "apps" are the only real way to get anything done on a mobile phone because their "apps" are what differentiate one handset from another.
Last weak, a PEW Internet poll released it's findings on mobile healthcare usage citing 9% of mobile users use health applications to track or manage their health. I found that number somewhat lower than what I had expected. If health is one of the highest searched terms on the desktop internet why doesn't it get more traction on a mobile? After all, last year, smartphones accounted for a growing 17% of the global cell phone market. These smartphones all have built-in web browsers. Mobile capability is simply a matter of convenience, while on the go vs. a stationary desktop. Reviewing the report, I realized why the number was so low. The survey questionnaire narrowed the definition:
For engaged health consumers and patients, this defines a health application strictly as "On your cell phone". Internet web applications and services are missing from the survey. PEW, a reputable industry trusted source, is often quoted and this survey is no different. The missed opportunity to show realistic growth1 gives skepticism for headlines such as Information Week's "Mobile Health Apps See Weak Adoption Rates" that paint a weak confidence in patient engagement using the mobile web.
There's a war between hardware manufactures to use an "apps" ecosystem as differentiators between them. Providers, on IT steering committees that decide on healthcare application development, should look beyond turf wars and marketing hype to see that healthcare applications remain truly agnostic. The wireless carriers would have you believe that only their device has the applications you need. Today's net neutral internet is still a place for innovation and more importantly, patient accessibility.
