Clinical Psychologist Discusses Pioneering Innovation in Virtual Reality Therapy for New Museum Exhibition

May 16, 2012, Silver Spring, Md.: Brenda K. Wiederhold, Ph.D., MBA, BCIA, executive vice president of the Virtual Reality Medical Center, recently shared stories of using virtual reality technology to treat soldiers suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, for a new multimedia exhibit installation at the National Museum of Health and Medicine.

In a video interview, Wiederhold explained that her organization was originally using virtual reality computer simulation technology to treat patients with phobias, panic disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder from being involved in motor vehicle accidents. However when soldiers began being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, the technology was adapted to not only treat soldiers coming back from the battlefields, but also to prepare troops getting ready to go into battle.

 

To see the full article, click here.

VRMI Attends Biofeedback Federation of Europe Meeting

BFE Photo

 

Communication Director Chelsie Boyd attended the Biofeedback Federation of Europe Meeting in Venice recently. The five day meeting included workshops and a Scientific Day where the latest research in the field was presented. Many participants took advantage of their time in Italy to enjoy a few sights and and experience the warmth of our Italian hosts. The different backgrounds of the partcipants made an  exchange of knowledge possible which gives space for new ideas in treating  clients or setting up research projects. The scientific program with tracks in Italian, neurofeedback and biofeedback made a real exchange of information possible.
From Generation to Generation

the 17th annual International CyberPsychology and CyberTherapy Conference (CYBER17) convened in Brussels, Belgium on the 25-28th September 2012. With speechs from keynote speakers such as Robert Madelin, Director General  of  the Communications Networks, Content and Technology Directorate General (DG-CONNECT)  at  the  European  Commission (EC), stakeholders from over 20 countries were in attendance, including industry  leaders,  academics, clinicians, government funders and representatives from affiliated associations.

The aim of the conference was twofold: to inform and educate on how advanced technologies, such as virtual reality, are being used in training, therapy  and rehabilitation;  and how interactive  technologies  and social networking tools are affecting individual behaviour (both positively and negatively), as well as interpersonal relationships and society in its entirety. An interactive exhibit area, the Cyberarium, allowed participants to try first-hand the innovative technological solutions.

Last  year,  the  European  Council  endorsed the  EC’s creation of an Innovation Partnership on Healthy and Active Ageing, with the goal of adding two years of healthy life to citizens by 2020. In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conduct activities helping older adults live long, productive  and independent  lives under the Healthy Ageing Programme.

While humanitarian reasons are the foundation for these programmes, the cost to society in their absence cannot be denied. As is true in Japan today, by 2030 more than 20% of the population of northern EC countries, Australia, Canada and the US will be over 65. In the US, about 80% of older adults have at least one chronic health condition, and such conditions can lead to the person’s inability to perform activities  of daily living (ADL) such as ‘bathing, dressing, eating, or moving around the house’.

Although information and communications technology (ICT) solutions  are only one part of the mix, a recent EC report confirmed that citizens view an ‘innovative way of care’ (a category that includes new ways to organise care, telecare and telehealth) as the most important part. Indeed, the author of a 2008 paper4 determined from a literature review and wireless technology experience that remote monitoring alone could ‘reduce healthcare expenditures by a net of $197bn (in constant 2008 dollars) over the next 25 years with adoption of policies  that reduce barriers and accelerate the use of  remote monitoring technologies’.

 

The full article is available here: From Generation to Generation – Dr._M.Baker_B.Wierderhold

From Clinical to Cloud
In September 2012, the 17th Annual CyberPsychology & CyberTherapy Conference (CYBER17) was held. With some of the restrictions to growth acknowledged as early as 2000, the International Association of
CyberPsychology, Training, & Rehabilitation (iACToR) community has become acutely aware of the need to transform itself to quicken the pace of progress. Suggestions made around that time period still remain and continued to be amongst the discussions at CYBER17. In 2000 perhaps these difficulties were acceptable; however, with a multitude of technological advancements, and 12 additional years of research funding, these deficiencies need no longer continue. One remaining stumbling block is the lack of interoperability: the applications and software content are available, but the infrastructure is still lacking to allow widespread deployment of these tools.
The need for an overall shift from institutional healthcare settings to everyday environments, and from treatment to a preventive approach based on new personalised healthcare technologies, is widely recognised and made available by the advancement of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). The Strategic Approach for the EU for 2008-2013 stated that ‘health is the greatest wealth’ and that ‘health is important for the wellbeing of individuals and society, but a healthy population is also a prerequisite for economic productivity and prosperity’. The strategy of European healthcare envisions innovation coupled with new technologies as the solution to these problems.
A wide variety of health promotion/disease prevention (wellness) multimedia content has been tested and validated in pilot studies and clinical trials. In addition, virtual reality content for multiple disorders ranging from obesity to posttraumatic stress disorder to cognitive and physical rehabilitation has shown clear efficacy. The development cycle for these technologies involved a migration process beginning with first designing and developing the solutions on desktop platforms, with input from end-users, clinicians and technical design staff. Once pilot studies and randomised, controlled clinical trials were performed, then the technologies were ported to more mobile platforms. Now the challenge is to move from the current mobile devices to a cloud-based solution for even easier access and more widely distributed treatment solutions.
It is critical that a platform now be put in place to deploy these tools for widespread use by stakeholders who may benefit from them; in some cases, these stakeholders will be individual citizens, and in other cases, healthcare providers. In order for this to occur, however, interoperability is essential. An infrastructure must be implemented that will allow applications to work without the necessity of the patient, trainee or clinician/researcher purchasing a separate peripheral device, specific computer or software package to run each app.
As Vice President for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes said in a September 2012 interview on the EU Commission’s strategy on cloud computing, good reasons to be in the cloud include interoperability, data portability and reversibility. After the interoperability hurdle has been surmounted by the adoption of cloud computing, the prices of apps can come down as development costs shrink. Secure protocols for transmission of patient data in the cloud are coming online. Therefore, the primary remaining barrier to adoption will be clinician training and patient education, in which the EU has the opportunity to play an important role.
The full article can be read here: From Clinical to Cloud – Dr_B.Wiederhold
EU “eHealth in Focus” Newspaper mentions Cyber18!
Direct Extract:
“From 30 June until 2 July 2013, the 18th Annual CyberPsychology & CyberTherapy Conference will take place. Topics include: electronic health coaching, using virtual reality in treatments (for example after hand surgery), the new EU research program Horizon 2020, virtual body swapping and advanced technologies in the assessment and evaluation of psychological stress.

CYBER18 has grown to a full-scale conference with presentations that demonstrate controlled clinical trials with unique applications of cutting edge technologies that improve the access and increase the quality of healthcare.

Prominent academic representatives from Europe, North America, and Asia will serve as Scientific Chairs and on its Scientific Committee.

Note in your agenda:

July 1 – Conference Day 1

Keynote Address: Robert Madelin (Director-General for DG CONNECT): “Cyber Everything in Horizon 2020”

July 2 – Conference Day 2

Innovations in Health and Well-Being – Chairs: Terje Peetso and Peteris Zilgalvis

“ICT to Prevent Citizens From Becoming Patients” – Peteris Zilgalvis (Head of Unit, ICT for Health and Wellbeing, DG CONNECT)

The EU funded INTERSTRESS Project: “Advanced Technologies in the Assessment and Evaluation of Psychological Stress” – Prof. Andrea Gaggioli, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Italy

European Commission Funding Program: Francois Junique (Project Officer, DG CONNECT, Flagship unit) will present  “The Human Brain project” (HBP).

Find the full program of the conference here.”

 

Original link can be found here

2011 Summer Editorial

Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation

Summer 2011, Volume 4, Issue 2

 

 EDITORIAL

Welcome to the Summer 2011 issue of the Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation (JCR). As you know, JCR is one of the two official journals of the International Association of CyberPsychology, Training & Rehabilitation (iACToR). Now in its 16th year, the annual international CyberPsychology & CyberTherapy Conference (CT16) agreed, in 2009, to become the official conference of iACToR. So, along with CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking Journal (CYBER), CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation (C&R) Magazine, and JCR, we celebrate our Combined Communications Platform. The journals, conference, magazine, and association combine into one powerful platform to address previous information deficits in the utilization of advanced technologies in healthcare. We will strive to speak with a united voice to inform and educate stakeholders about the uses of technologies in healthcare, as well as how technologies are impacting behavior and society.

This year we are proud to be holding CT in Canada. Organized by the Interactive Media Institute (IMI), a 501c3 nonprofit organization, in cooperation with Université du Québec en Outoauais (UQO), CT16 is being held June 19-22, 2011 in Gatineau, Canada. This venue speaks to the continued growth and collaboration, not just amongst Europe and the U.S., but also amongst researchers and scholars worldwide. This year’s conference theme is two-fold: First, CT16 will explore technologies as enabling tools. This will include the uses of advanced technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR) simulations, videogames, telehealth, video-conferencing, the Internet, robotics, brain computer interfaces, wearable computing, non-invasive physiological monitoring devices, in diagnosis, assessment, and prevention of mental and physical disorders. In addition, we will look at interactive media in training, education, rehabilitation, and therapeutic interventions. Second, CT16 will explore the impact of new technologies. CT16 will investigate how new technologies are influencing behavior and society, for example, through healthy ageing initiatives, positive and negative effects of social network- ing tools, and online gaming.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who are helping to make this year’s conference possible through their tireless energy and drive the Co-Organizer and Conference Co-Chair Professor Stéphane Bouchard; this year’s Scientific Chairs, Professors Paul Emmelkamp, Wijnand Ijsselsteijn and Giuseppe Riva; Exhibit Chair Professor Sun Kim; Workshop Chair Pro- fessor Heidi Sveistrup; Cyberarium Chair Geneviève Robillard; and Website Chair Professor Andrea Gaggioli. Many thanks also to the Scientific Committee, made up of prominent researchers from around the world, and the Local Advisory Committee in Gatineau, as well as all of the presenters and attendees. Finally, my gratitude to Geneviève Robillard, Emily Butcher and Jocel Rivera for overseeing the Conference Coordination, to Christina Valenti for editing related materials, and to the teams at Université du Québec en Outaouais, Interactive Media Institute, Virtual Reality Medical Center, and Virtual Realty Medical Institute for their time and contributions to all facets of the conference.

To our sponsors, who continue to support our vision and help make it a reality, a warm and heartfelt thank you – 3dVia, Assemblée Nationale du Québec, Canada Research Chair in Clinical Cyberpsychology, Casino LacLeamy, the European Commission Information Society and Media, Gouvernement du Québec, Interactive Media Institute (IMI), International Association of Cy- berPsychology, Training & Rehabilitation (iACToR), INTERSTRESS, In Virtuo, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Publishers, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO), Ville de Gatineau, the Virtual Reality Medical Center (VRMC), the Virtual Reality Medical Institute (VRMI) and WorldViz.

As integral parts of our Combined Communications Platform, the CT Conference series will continue to work together with iACToR, JCR, and C&R to inform and educate industry, academia, and government officials and the general public on the explosive growth of advanced technologies for therapy, training, education, prevention and rehabilitation.

As in previous conferences, this year’s conference will be hosting an interactive exhibit area, the Cyberarium, which allows conference attendees and members of the press to try new technologies firsthand. To recognize outstanding achievements by students and new researchers, as well as lifetime achievement for a senior researcher, we will also be hosting awards during the conference and announcing the 2011-2012 iACToR officers during the General Assembly. Pre-conference workshops will focus on advanced topics including psychotherapeutic applications, brain computer interface devices, and rehabilitation, and there will also be an introduction to VR workshop for those newer to the area.

As we approach CT16 with excitement, we begin too to look toward next year’s conference, CyberPsychology & CyberTherapy 17, to be held in Brussels, Belgium September 12-15, 2012. Thank you again for your commit- ment to the evolution of healthcare!

 

 

Brenda K. Wiederhold, Ph.D., MBA, BCIA

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation

Virtual Reality Medical Institute

Who Gets Funding? Let the People Decide

In The Department of Mad Scientists,1 Michael Belfiore offers a glimpse into the workings of the maverick Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is re- sponsible for the birth of the Internet and GPS, among other amazing inventions. The small percentage of Americans who know about DARPA may have heard about it because it funds the Grand Challenge Race, with a $2 million prize for the first autonomous robot that makes it through a desert course, avoiding obstacles and following the rules.

‘‘One enormous continuing development is the exponen- tial growth of social networking media and the increasing use of social media by companies to crowdsource ideas, mount contests to award prizes and gather audiences, and attempt to create dialogues with customers,’’ wrote Rosabeth Moss Kanter in her syndicated column toward the end of 2010.2 The following examples illustrate how these new types of contests can work, and provide food for thought about new possi- bilities for research and development funding.

In 2010, Google awarded a total of $10 million to five finalists in its Project 10^100 contest, which solicited ideas for changing the world by helping as many people as possible. From 150,000 ideas submitted by people in 170 countries, Google selected 16 big ideas and let people vote for their favorites.

The Pepsi Refresh Project is looking for great ideas that are going to ‘‘refresh the world.’’ As with traditional grant funding, there are specific grant cycles, applications, and ca- tegories for projects costing from $5,000 to $50,000. What is new is that the project director gets to promote his/her pro- ject through videos and social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and the projects that garner the most votes win. Pepsi awards up to $1.2 million each month for such projects.

A 2011 contest sponsored by Enterprise Rent a Car was called Giving Back. It allowed visitors to its Facebook page to decide among 10 competing charities nominated by En- terprise employees. The first-place winner received $10,000, the second-place winner received $5,000, and the third- and fourth-place winners received $2,500 each. The contest gave Enterprise Rent a Car an opportunity to promote its foun- dation, which gives 75% of its funds to employee-suggested charities.

Talking about the Dockers ‘‘Wear the Pants’’ contest, in which entrants submitted a 400-word business plan and awards were made on the basis of votes from both commu- nity members and a panel of judges, one author3 offers tips for businesses wishing to engage in social media contests:

  •  The best prizes positively affect people’s lives, creating a positive association for the company.
  •  If everyone gets something (e.g., a coupon) for partici- pating, it helps everyone feel included.
  •  Associating with a good cause generates emotional ap- peal and a reason to spread the word.
  •  Running a contest through Facebook keeps visitors there longer, interacting with the company and each other.
  • A ‘‘soft sell’’ approach that mixes branding, sales, and
    contest strategy is appropriate for social media.
  • Identifying how the contest fits into the marketing strategy, devoting sufficient resources, and defining what a successful outcome looks like are essential to thecontest’s success.

CYBER readers may be interested in the results of a recent study,4 which identified seven key components to informa- tion communication and technology (ICT) competitions:

1. Challenge goal—what sponsors hope to achieve (e.g., prompt innovative thinking);
2. Marketing—howandtowhomsponsorsspreadtheword (e.g., conferences, Web site, social networking sites);
3. Application process—how entries are submitted (most are publicly available);
4. Judging criteria—what is used to evaluate applicants (e.g., originality, economic viability);
5. Judging process—the particular mix that determines winners (e.g., external experts, crowdsourcing, presen- tations);
6. Winners—recent winners and their topics (e.g., mobile apps);
7. Supplemental support—what additional support is of- fered to winners (e.g., coaching for pitching ideas to investors).

The authors of this study concluded, ‘‘In general, contests are increasingly being used as a tool to solve society’s most entrenched problems.’’

This leads us to suggest that more government agencies follow DARPA’s lead. Why shouldn’t governments hold con- tests that let the people decide which projects are funded? This could start small, with perhaps one percent of government re- search and development funding allocated to such contests. In these days of American Idol voting and social media-based contests, we suggest that U.S. and European government agencies consider the benefits of letting the people decide.

References
1. Belfiore M. (2009) The Department of Mad Scientists: How DARPA Is Remaking Our World, from the Internet to Artificial Limbs. Washington, DC: Smithsonian.
2. Kanter RM. A promising year for technology and innovation. Harvard Business Review 2010; T19:20:43Z.

3. Cotriss D. Social Campaign Shows the Power of Contests. Small Business Trends, April 21, 2011. http://smallbiztrends.com/ 2011/04/social-campaign-shows-the-power-of-contests.html (accessed May 10, 2011).
4. Arabella Philanthropic Investment Advisors. (2009) Media, in- formation and communication contests: an analysis. Presented to John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. www.knightfoundation .org/dotAsset/356025.pdf (accessed May 10, 2011).

 

Brenda K. Wiederhold

Editor-in-Chief

Investment in Innovation: Lessons Learned from China

Investment in Innovation: Lessons Learned from China

President Obama was right to focus on innovation and job creation in his January 2011 State of the Union speech. There is a need to create and fill new jobs in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, and investments in innova- tion will enable businesses using virtual reality and other healthcare technology to be part of a new, much-needed job creation engine.

If U.S. government funding for innovation and education does not increase, China may eclipse the United States in research and development funding within the next 20 years.1 By August 2010, China’s economy had surpassed that of Ja- pan, positioning it as the second-largest economy behind the United States. Some predict that China’s economy will sur- pass that of the United States as early as 2017.2

The United States has enjoyed dominance in innovation for the past 40 years, but that landscape is changing quickly with the globalization of R&D. Not just China but Korea, India, Russia, and Brazil are all investing in R&D at higher rates than the United States, Germany, and Japan.1 Relatively high labor costs in the European Union presage low R&D invest- ments over the next decade, with southern EU states such as Greece, Italy, and Spain investing at a lower rate than their northern counterparts.

Another result of R&D globalization is a reversal of the flow of funds, now flowing from some less developed to more developed countries. For example, China has made investments outside the country in telecommunications, as has India in pharmaceuticals.1

China’s leaders understand the importance of R&D. ‘‘Eight of the nine members of China’s Standing Committee of the Political Bureau, including China’s current President Hu Jintao, have engineering degrees. Of the 15 U.S. cabinet members, only one, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, has a technical degree—a doctorate in physics.’’3 Consequently, the Chinese government has an innovation policy designed to encourage Chinese companies to create and own tech- nologies. The policy also encourages technology transfer from abroad and establishment of Chinese R&D facilities in exchange for foreign company access to China’s high- volume markets. As a result, a number of multinational technology and pharmaceutical companies have taken ad- vantage of this policy, some transferring facilities from India.

The Chinese government owns all top-ranked academies, including universities, and has tripled its investment in ed- ucation in the past 12 years.3 Of the five million students graduating per year, about one million are research students.

Furthermore, China’s academicians file more patent appli- cations than those in any other country—16% compared to 4% in the United States.

In addition, the Chinese government plays a direct role in investing in 150 companies, providing 27% of their funding in 2007, the latest year for which data are available.3 Universities partner with industry, and about the half the universities’ R&D funding, primary in technology transfer, comes from industry.

In the United States, a recent survey shows that venture capitalists expect their industry to decline over the next 5 years.4 VCs in France, Israel, and the UK also predict a drop, while those in China, Brazil, and India expect growth. What is most discouraging for U.S. business is that most U.S. VCs expect the available amount of venture capital to decrease by at least 30%.

In the United States, small companies—those most in need of venture capital—perform 19% of the nation’s R&D.5 Over the past 25 years, the most dramatic growth in U.S. federal R&D spending has been in health, which accounted for 52% of nondefense R&D in FY2008.

Given the data cited in this editorial, it should come as no surprise that China, India, and Brazil may surpass the United States in innovative healthcare delivery over the next de- cade.6 The United States has the patient populations neces- sary for research, but the rate of growth in financial support and education of researchers has not kept pace with that of developing countries.

President Obama has declared ‘‘innovation in healthcare’’ one of three national priorities for FY2012. With Congress unlikely to approve any initiative that adds to the federal budget deficit, can he deliver on his promises of increased funds for innovation and education?

 

References
1. Battelle. 2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast. R&D Magazine 2010 (Dec), p. 24. www.rdmag.com/uploadedFiles/RD/ Featured_Articles/2010/12/GFF2010_FINAL_REV_small.pdf (accessed Jan. 30, 2011).
2. Euromonitor International. Top 10 largest economies in 2020. Euromonitor Global Market Research Blog 2010 (Jul 7). http:// blog.euromonitor.com/2010/07/special-report-top-10-largest- economies-in-2020.html (accessed Jan. 30, 2011).
3. Battelle. 2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast. R&D Magazine 2010 (Dec), pp. 27–29. www.rdmag.com/uploadedFiles/RD/ Featured_Articles/2010/12/GFF2010_FINAL_REV_small.pdf (accessed Jan. 30, 2011).
181
182
4. Smith R. Venture capitalists in U.S. expect VC industry, funding to shrink. Local Tech Wire 2010 (Jul 14). http:// localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/opinion/blog post/7959577/ (accessed Jan. 30, 2011).
5. National Science Board. Chapter 4. Research and Develop- ment: National Trends and International Linkages. In Na- tional Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010, p. 4-4.
6.
www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/c04.pdf (accessed Jan. 30, 2011). PwC Medical Technology Innovation Scorecard Highlights. www .pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/ innovation-scorecard/index.jhtml (accessed Jan. 30, 2011).
Brenda K. Wiederhold

Editor-in-Chief

2011 Spring Editorial

Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation

Spring 2011, Volume 4, Issue 1

 

EDITORIAL

There is an emerging body of literature about the proliferation of social networking sites (SNS) and their effects on mental health. To date, much of it has focused on investigating the possible negative effects of SNS, such as Internet addiction. However, research also supports the benefits of SNS in mental health, addictions, stigmatized identities, trauma and violence recovery, and grief support. As clinicians and researchers, we are just beginning to harness the power of SNS to promote mental well- being.

Participation in SNS has increased dramatically over the past five years. A 2010 Pew report showed that 73% of online teens and 47% of online adults in the U.S. used SNS. Another survey conducted by Pew in April–May 2010 noted that Poland, Britain, and South Korea are close behind the U.S. in SNS usage, followed by France, Spain, Russia, and Brazil. Lower participation in other countries is due primarily to less-wired populations. No table exceptions are Germany and Japan, where Internet usage is high but SNS usage is low.

The European Union has been investing in e-Health since 2004, when outgoing Public Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner David Byrne said, “We need a … Europe where people have easy access to clear and reliable information on how to be in good health and about diseases and treatment options.” An outgrowth of the European Parliament hearing at which he testified was the creation of the ICT (information and communication technologies) for Health, enabling health service providers in different EU member states to work together to exploit these technologies. More recently, the First International E-Mental Health Summit in Amsterdam in 2009 organized by the Trimbos Institute in collaboration with the International Society for Research on Internet Interventions attracted 500 participants from more than 40 countries. In the U.S., the new healthcare reform law provides financial incentives for providers to use health information technology and electronic health records, and in March 2011 leaders in healthcare technology will share their innovations in San Diego and San Francisco, California for the Health 2.0 conference.

In one such innovation, a researcher used a GPS-enabled phone and a location-aware SNS to design a system to help trainees with cognitive impairment who felt lost to find a nearby caregiver. These individuals were enrolled in a supported employment program that provided them with a job coach to help them get to and from work for the first few weeks. The system was programmed to send text messages to the job coach and time and location alarms to help the trainee get to work on time. This type of SNS could enable parents, guardians, and caregivers to watch loved ones unobtrusively.

A recent study of 217 college-age participants in South Korea found that SNS network size was positively related to subjective well-being, and the results suggest that this is due to self-disclosure. In the SNS context, it is postulated that the positive association with well-being results from the self-disclosure “confession effect,” the expectation of mutual self-disclosure, and the expectation of social support.

A case study report found that deploying the Three Good Things positive psychology exercise as a Facebook ap- plication was viable, with a 1% dropout rate, which is similar to or better than other online wellness applications. In the exercise, people post three good things that happened, along with the reasons they think they happened. People found that sharing with others and viewing other’s posts were valuable, as long as they were able to choose which comments they made were public and which were private.

Specialized health SNS such as PatientsLikeMe and DailyStrength offer emotional support, social support, and
patient empowerment; some also offer physician Q&A, quantified self-tracking, and clinical trials access. PatientsLikeMe includes support for mental disorders such as anxiety, bipolar affective disorder, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder; DailyStrength provides support for an even broader array of mental health issues. In an online SNS, inhibitions may be lowered, anxiety may be lessened, and anonymity may be increased. This presents the ideal 24/7 support for treatment of people with disorders such as depression. Indeed, the Pew report showed that teens look online for health information about issues they find are embarrassing to talk about such as drugs, sex, and depression.

Of course, there are cautions. One study found that people with depression who used an online SNS spiraled down if they had friends who were moderately or severely depressed and had a negative opinion of the SNS. The researchers concluded that the SNS could be helpful if people take a break from it if their posts elicit these reactions.

A position paper on pervasive healthcare concludes that “[provided-designed systems and services] should include help for people to access peer-to-peer social support sharing and caring in order to encourage sustained engagement with self management to build positive healthy identities for themselves.” Online health consumers are beginning to rely on “patient opinion leaders” for advice on chronic conditions such as mental disorders, and we need to be there with them. Of course, we must be mindful of issues such as privacy and data accuracy as we create tools to help SNS participants balance their needs to share information with their needs to manage self-presentation. Nonetheless, as clinicians and researchers, we should take advantage of SNS to extend the practice of evidence based medicine and mental health.

 

 

Brenda K. Wiederhold, Ph.D., MBA, BCIA

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation

Virtual Reality Medical Institute

What Are the True Costs of Regulation

What Are the True Costs of Regulation?

 

Many researchers and clinicians working in cybertherapy create their own businesses, which allow them to protect their intellectual property. In the United States, small businesses create the majority of jobs but bear proportionally more of the cost burden of implementing laws and regulations than do larger companies. This is true primarily because larger companies enjoy economies of scale. However, estimates of the true costs of regulation vary widely.

A new study* found that companies with fewer than 20 employees pay 42% more per employee than companies with between 20 and 499 employees, and 36% more than companies with 500 or more employees. For small businesses, the average cost per employee was $10,585 compared to $7,454 for medium-sized and $7,755 for large businesses.

According to the study, environmental regulations cost 364% more in small versus large companies, and tax compliance
is 206% higher. Occupational safety and health and homeland security are other top cost drivers.

The researchers calculated that some types of industry pay more than others. For example, small manufacturers (such as small manufacturers of medical devices) pay 110% more for compliance than medium-sized manufacturers and 125% more than large manufacturers. Small health-care firms (such as cybertherapy clinics) pay 45% more than medium firms and 28% more than large firms.

The authors say the total cost of regulation is $1.75 trillion, and note that businesses must close shop, reallocate activity, absorb the cost, or pass on the costs to customers. They estimate the per-household cost of federal regulation and taxes at $37,962.

The report notes, ‘‘If federal regulations place a differentially large cost on small business, this potentially causes inefficiencies in the structure of American enterprises and the relocation of production facilities to less regulated countries, and adversely affects the international competitiveness of domestically produced American products and services.’’

Some say that the above numbers are inflated and the study methodology is questionable, pointing to the annual report of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the costs and benefits of regulation for a truer picture of the cost of regulation.

The OMB report notes that ‘‘The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2009, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $128 billion and $616 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $43 billion and $55 billion,’’ and that ‘‘Most rules have net benefits, but some rules have net costs.’’

Regardless of which of these estimates is closer to the true cost of regulation, the truth is that many regulatory costs are fixed: they are the same whether a company has 20 employees or 20,000. And the 89% of U.S. companies that have fewer than 20 employees produce a significant number of innovations. As President Obama has said, ‘‘Small businesses are the heart of the American economy.’’

In fall 2010, President Obama signed the Small Business Jobs Act, designed to help small businesses have easier access to credit and to provide more tax breaks. While a worthy effort, it does nothing to stem the tide of ever more regulation coming out of Washington.

Regulation per se is neither good nor bad. Rather, regulation in which the benefit outweighs the cost is good; regulation in which the cost outweighs the benefit is bad. Not all benefits can be quantified, which further complicates the picture.

It is time to start a serious dialog about the true cost of regulation, one that uses methodologically sound benefit–cost ratios as a starting point. I encourage readers to become involved in commenting on proposed regulations, so that only those regulations that pass the benefit–cost test are implemented. It is important to do so: the very future of innovation in health technology is at stake.

                                                                                                                                                                                                         Brenda K. Wiederhold

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Editor-in-Chief