Connect with us

Opinion

Why digital health needs a definitive definition

By Cindy Moy Carr, founder and CEO of Vorsdatter Limited

Published

on

Digital health is loosely defined as any type of healthcare application that is software-based. Or is it?

A 2020 overview of 1,527 papers by Fatehi et al. found 95 unique definitions of digital health. The authors noted “digital health, as has been used in the literature, is more concerned about the provision of healthcare rather than the use of technology”.

They added: “Well-being of people, both at population and individual levels, have been more emphasised than the care of patients suffering from disease.”

They also suggested the dominant concept in digital health is mobile health or mHealth, which is associated with concepts such as telehealth, eHealth, and artificial intelligence in healthcare – none of which particularly helps an investor that wants to become part of what is a revolution in healthcare.

From 2011 to 2021, digital health funding and deals climbed from 94 deals and a total of US$1.2bn to 729 deals for a total of US$29.1bn. The average deal size in 2021 was US$39.9m, according to Rock Health.

In my experience in talking to potential investors, they’re excited about digital health. They’ve heard about it and want to get involved in it.

But they’re not sure what it is. Is it software? Is it hardware? Is it a device like the Apple Watch? Hospital software? Implantable chips or a ring to wear on your finger?

Most importantly to potential investors, how can they make money from it in a relatively short time frame?

Digital health has the potential to transform healthcare and improve quality of patient care. It can drive efficiencies and decrease costs. But it’s important that everyone involved understands what it is.

A few thoughts on definitions

Often, the definition of “digital health” is built on tools. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s definition includes, “Categories such as mobile health (mHealth), health information technology (IT), wearable devices, telehealth and telemedicine, and personalized medicine.”

Another definition, from Mesko et al., is based on societal impact or vision: “…the cultural transformation of how disruptive technologies that provide digital and objective data accessible to both caregivers and patients leads to an equal level doctor-patient relationship with shared decision-making and the democratization of care.”

The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) proposes: “Digital health connects and empowers people and populations to manage health and wellness, augmented by accessible and supportive provider teams working within flexible, integrated, interoperable, and digitally-enabled care environments that strategically leverage digital tools, technologies and services to transform care delivery.”

These are complicated definitions, for sure, and as someone running a digital health company, I prefer the broader and looser definition of a software-based health application.

It covers a range of modalities, including wearable devices, telehealth, online portals, and apps. Another definition could be “where healthcare and the internet meet.”

Why should we care?

One reason to care is that digital connectivity changed everything. Although there are still obstacles with interoperability — how data from one device or system communicates with another system or device — the current impact and future impact are considerable.

Consider five possible benefits:

  1. As is well understood, appropriate healthcare is unequal, often limited by socio-economic status, geography, and cultural issues. Women use our apps, mySysters (iOS) and Hot Flash Sisters (Android), to manage perimenopause and menopause symptoms. They were developed during my own experience of caring for small children, a spouse who survived a heart attack at the age of forty-eight, a mother with dementia, and an elderly father, all while experiencing severe perimenopause symptoms including migraines, dry eyes and repeated UTIs. At the time I was living in Minnesota–home to the biggest concentration of medical device companies in the US, as well as the Mayo Clinic–and married to a biomedical engineer. Despite health insurance, geography, and other resources, it was ten years–TEN YEARS–before I was able to access medical care for perimenopause. Seven years later, the healthcare situation has not improved for most women. Half of US counties do not have a single ob/gyn. Of those that do, many understandably prioritise pregnant patients, leaving perimenopausal and menopausal women with nowhere to turn. Use of a digital health application enables a person to actively learn about and manage her symptoms through lifestyle changes before making a doctor appointment.
  2. Efficiency. Digital health can streamline communication with healthcare providers and potentially decrease unnecessary site visits. Women who track their symptoms are more engaged and informed patients. Physicians may have fewer than ten minutes to spend with each patient. Imagine the level of care received by one of our customers who walked in and presented twelve weeks of data on every migraine, hot flash and night sweat she experienced compared to my initial doctor visits in 2007 when I’d never even heard the term ‘night sweat,’ much less whether I’d had one or when.
  3. Lower costs. Improved efficiency can decrease costs. Reduce the time physicians and staff spend on in-person patient visits and decrease costs. More importantly, more accurate and faster diagnoses can avoid unnecessary procedures. The data is still undeveloped, however. A 2022 study published in Front Public Health by Gentili et al. reported, “Findings on cost-effectiveness of digital interventions showed a growing body of evidence and suggested a generally favorable effect in terms of costs and health outcomes.” But due to the heterogeneity of reports, it was difficult to compare effectiveness between approaches.
  4. Better quality. A 2022 review of 54 digital health studies published in Digital Health found that the “majority of reviews describe improved health behavior, enhanced assessment, treatment compliance, and better coordination as the main approach of quality improvement via digital health.” Although electronic health records (EHR) are common now, patient and healthcare data8 aren’t being appropriately accessed, analyzed, and linked to alerts to notify providers and patients that action is required.
  5. Personalised medicine. Sometimes dubbed personalised health care (PHC), personalised medicine is a scaffolding for patient care linking predictive technologies with an engaged patient to promote health and disease prevention. The goal, simply, is to treat individuals, and not treat healthcare as one-size-fits-all. Further, but more effectively treating patients, digital health should decrease costs while improving outcomes.

Where is the money going?

Investor interest is a good reason to settle on a reasonable definition of digital health. GSR Ventures conducted a survey of 50 digital health venture capital investors at the end of 2022 and expected there to be investments from about US$15bn to US$25bn in 2023.

In 2021, digital health investment hit US$29.1bn, per Rock Health, a jump from US$15bn in 2020.

Last year was actually down, around US$12.6bn, but 2023 is projected to be similar to 2020.

Not unusual, investors are interested in a high return on investment (ROI). Another factor investors appear interested in is clinical validation of a technology’s platform. That makes sense and is only likely to become more important as the sector matures.

In addition, any digital health solution that reduces ongoing labor shortages in healthcare or can help with administrative burdens is likely to be of interest to investors.

Approximately 40 per cent to 50 per cent of health-tech investing since 2019, worth about US$30bn, has been toward alternative care, according to Chris Moniz, market manager in Silicon Valley Bank’s HealthTech & Devices segment. This has included telehealth, home dialysis machines, and a variety of remote trackers.

Moniz believes two subsectors of alternative care will be the hot new areas of growth: mental health and women’s health.

One thing is certain. There’s still quite a bit of interest in digital health. And its impact has the potential to be huge.

 

Cindy Moy Carr is the founder and CEO of Vorsdatter Limited which developed mySysters, an app for perimenopause and menopause. She’s an attorney and journalist who authored the American Bar Association’s Guide to Health Care Law.

News

We built Ema like a nurse: Here’s why that matters

Published

on

By Claire Pettengill, science intern and Jade Anstine, clinical AI intern, Ema EQ

Every year, Gallup asks Americans which professions they trust most. Every year, nurses win. Not doctors. Not scientists. Nurses. And if you spend any time thinking about why, the answer is not hard to find.

Medicine runs on the nurse noticing first. In other words, the diagnosis follows the nurse sounding the alarm. They ask questions that feel human, not procedural. They explain what is happening in language you can understand.

And, critically, they know when something is beyond their scope and get you to the right person without making you feel like a burden for needing more.

That is the model we built Ema on.

When we set out to build an AI companion for women’s health, we could have just built something that answers questions efficiently. Pattern matching. Fast retrieval. Clinically accurate outputs.

Those things matter, and Ema does all of them. But accuracy alone does not build trust, and trust is the entire game in healthcare.

A woman asking about her postpartum recovery, her fertility, or her breastfeeding supply is not looking for a search engine. She is looking for someone who will take her seriously.

Women’s concerns don’t just need to be ‘validated’; they also need to be believed. Dismiss a woman’s pain as anxiety once, and you’ve taught her to doubt her own body.

The nursing model of care is built on exactly that premise. It is care that is shaped by her story. It asks about context and symptoms.

It treats the person as a whole, and it recognises that the right answer is sometimes a referral, not a response.

We trained Ema to escalate. That may sound like a small thing, but in AI, it is a deliberate design choice.

Most AI systems are optimised to answer and maintain engagement. Ema is optimised to help, and sometimes helping means saying “you need to speak to a clinician” and making that path easy.

This matters especially in women’s health, where the clinical trust gap is well-documented.

In a 2022 nationally representative survey of over 5,000 women, nearly 1 in 3 reported that their doctor had dismissed their concerns, and 15 per cent said a provider simply didn’t believe them.

Women are more likely to have their symptoms dismissed, their concerns minimised, and their pain undertreated. Among women under 35, nearly half reported at least one of these experiences.

They have had to learn how to advocate within systems designed for efficiency, built on men’s health.

With Ema, every conversation is an opportunity to make a woman feel heard, informed, and directed to the right level of care, neither over-triaged nor undertreated.

The goal is not to replace clinicians. It is to create a trustworthy first point of support that listens carefully, explains clearly, recognises limits, and helps women move toward appropriate care.

The nurses who top those Gallup rankings every year earn that trust through consistency. They show up, listen, follow through, and know their limits.

Ema is simply that trust, built into technology. That is the standard we hold Ema to: a trustworthy presence that knows when to answer and when to hand off.

Medicine spent a long time teaching women not to expect to be believed. Ema is built by the people who never stopped listening.

Bios

Claire Pettengill is a psychiatric nurse and DNP-PMHNP candidate at Columbia University School of Nursing, specialising in women’s mental health across the lifespan and algorithmic justice – ensuring the AI tools shaping women’s care are built to actually listen. She joined Ema EQ as a science intern focusing on clinical safety standards for evaluating AI in women’s health.

Jade Anstine is a senior nursing student at Gustavus Adolphus College looking to bridge the gap between frontline medicine and digital health innovation. He joined Ema EQ as a Clinical AI Intern to assess the Ema AI model across different clinical populations, specifically pediatrics and LGBTQ+.

Continue Reading

Insight

The technology exists: Why are women still waiting?

Published

on

By Jane Lewis, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and women’s health lead, ABHI

For years, the conversation around women’s health has rightly focused on recognition.

Recognition that women wait longer for diagnosis. Recognition that symptoms are too often dismissed or normalised. Recognition that healthcare systems have historically been designed around male biology, leaving gaps in research, evidence and care.

That recognition matters. But awareness alone will not improve outcomes.

The challenge facing women’s health today is no longer simply identifying the problem. It is acting on the solutions already available.

At ABHI’s Women’s Health Summit earlier this year, leaders from across healthcare, government, academia and industry came together to discuss the future of women’s health.

One message emerged repeatedly throughout the day: we do not have an innovation problem.

Across medical devices, diagnostics, digital health and genomics, there are already technologies capable of transforming outcomes for women.

From self-sampling approaches for cervical screening and non-invasive diagnostics to AI-enabled tools and advanced imaging, innovation is happening. The question is whether healthcare systems can adopt it quickly enough.

Too often, promising technologies become trapped in pilot programmes, fragmented procurement processes or lengthy implementation pathways. Evidence generation, commissioning and adoption are frequently treated as separate challenges rather than part of a single journey.

The consequence is that innovations capable of improving quality of life and reducing pressure on health services take years to reach the women who could benefit from them.

This matters because women’s health extends far beyond reproductive health.

Historically, many discussions have centred on fertility, pregnancy and gynaecological conditions. These remain critically important, but they represent only part of the picture.

Women experience cardiovascular disease differently to men. They are disproportionately affected by autoimmune conditions. They face distinct health challenges throughout their lives, from adolescence to healthy ageing.

                            Jane Lewis

Yet healthcare systems often continue to approach these issues in isolation.

A woman does not experience her health in separate compartments. Pregnancy, cardiovascular risk, menopause, mental health and musculoskeletal conditions are interconnected.

Healthcare systems need to reflect that reality through more integrated, life-course approaches to care.

There has never been a better opportunity to do so.

Across the NHS, the shift towards prevention, community-based care and digital transformation aligns closely with the needs of women’s health.

Women’s Health Hubs are already demonstrating the benefits of bringing services together around the needs of women rather than organisational boundaries. Digital technologies are helping to identify risk earlier and support more personalised care.

Innovation can help deliver all three of the NHS’s major transformation ambitions: moving from treatment to prevention, from hospital to community, and from analogue to digital care.

But innovation alone is not enough.

Closing the women’s health gap also requires us to address longstanding gaps in research and evidence.

Women remain underrepresented in many areas of clinical research, and sex-disaggregated analysis is not always applied consistently. The result is that clinical pathways and treatment decisions are often based on evidence that does not fully reflect female physiology.

Better data, stronger research participation and greater focus on female-specific and female-predominant conditions will be essential.

There is also a compelling economic case for action.

Women’s health is often framed as an equality issue, and equality remains central. But poor health affects workforce participation, productivity and economic growth.

Improving outcomes for women benefits not only patients, but employers, healthcare systems and wider society.

Yet despite this, women’s health innovation continues to attract only a fraction of the investment directed towards other areas of healthcare.

That is beginning to change.

Across the UK and internationally, momentum is building. Governments, investors, researchers and innovators increasingly recognise that women’s health is both a societal necessity and an economic opportunity.

The conversation has moved on significantly in recent years. Topics that were once overlooked are now firmly on the policy agenda.

The next challenge is ensuring that awareness translates into action.

The technologies exist. The evidence is growing. The policy direction is increasingly clear.

ABHI is increasingly taking this agenda beyond national boundaries. Through our engagement with international industry associations, policymakers and healthcare leaders, we are working to ensure that women’s health is recognised as both a health and economic priority.

We are helping to shape discussions on innovation, regulation, investment and adoption, while sharing lessons from the UK with partners around the world.

Whether addressing the gender health gap, improving access to diagnostics or accelerating the uptake of new technologies, international collaboration will be essential.

The challenge now is not recognising the need for change, but delivering it.

Women have waited long enough for acknowledgement of the problem. They should not have to wait any longer for the benefits of the solutions that already exist.

ABHI is the UK’s leading industry association for HealthTech. Its members, ranging from multinationals to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), develop and supply technologies spanning everything from syringes and wound dressings to surgical robots, diagnostics, and digitally enabled healthcare solutions. ABHI’s 400 member companies represent approximately 80% of the UK HealthTech sector by value.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Women’s Health has waited long enough for innovation

Published

on

By Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden, clinician at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, academic at King’s College London, and chief medical officer of MEGI Health.

A woman gives birth. A few days later she goes home, often with a bag of medication for her blood pressure, and then, very often, very little structured follow-up for her heart (cardiovascular) health.

In my clinical work, and through our collaboration with Action on Pre-eclampsia, I see and hear about this postnatal cliff edge again and again, and it still shocks me.

We invest a lot of medical care and attention whilst a woman or birthing individual is pregnant, then, at the very moment emerging evidence suggests we have a window of opportunity to modify long-term health, the support falls away.

That cliff edge is a symptom of a deeper issue: we have come to treat “women’s health” as a synonym for reproductive health. Pregnancy, periods and fertility, important as they are, have crowded out everything else.

Yet the conditions that do most to shorten and limit women’s lives are not reproductive at all.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women worldwide, and it is still too readily thought of as a man’s problem.

Heart disease in women is more likely to be missed and under-treated, in part because for decades women were under-represented in the research that built our knowledge.

Pregnancy makes this vivid.

Conditions such as pre-eclampsia are not only risks to be managed for nine months; they are early warnings about a woman’s future, markers that she is more likely to develop heart disease and high blood pressure in the years to come.

We have the knowledge to act on that. What we mostly do instead is discharge her and look away.

This is exactly the kind of problem better tools should help us solve: spotting risk earlier, supporting women and their clinicians through the vulnerable postnatal window, and providing continuity where the system currently provides a drop due to lack of capacity.

Artificial intelligence and digital health have real potential here; in risk prediction, in monitoring blood pressure at home, and in helping stretched clinicians know who needs attention and when.

And yet this is not where most of the energy is going.

It is far easier to build, fund and scale an app that tracks a cycle than a tool that changes the trajectory of a woman’s heart.

So, innovation clusters at the lighter, lower-risk end of innovation, while the conditions that actually kill and disable women, and moments like the postnatal cliff, stay under-served.

Closing the women’s health gap could add at least a trillion dollars to the global economy each year, the World Economic Forum estimates, but the bigger prize is women living longer, healthier lives.

None of this means technology is a cure in itself. It is a tool, and a tool built carelessly can do harm.

Because women have been under-represented in medical data, systems trained on that data can quietly carry the same blind spots forward, deepening inequalities rather than closing them.

Responsible innovation, with clinical-grade evidence, privacy and equity designed in from the start, and tools built around real clinical pathways rather than bolted on afterwards, is not a brake on progress.

It is the only version of progress worth having.

I am optimistic, because a serious community is forming around exactly these questions and the appetite to get it right is real.

It is why, at MEGI, we are bringing clinicians, researchers, founders, regulators and investors together for our AI × Women’s Health summit on 25 June.

If we keep our focus on the conditions that matter most to women’s lives, and build the tools to meet them responsibly, the postnatal cliff edge could become something else entirely: the moment the system finally catches her and delivers preventative healthcare.

AI × Women’s Health: Innovation, Challenges and Opportunities summit is taking place on Thursday 25 June 2026 at the London Institute for Healthcare Engineering. The event is free and is fully booked and operating a waiting list. Join the waiting list here.

About Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden

Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden is a UK Obstetrics and Gynaecology registrar and Chadburn Clinical Lecturer at KCL passionate about transforming women’s health through technology and innovation.

Combining NHS clinical experience with an MRC-funded PhD, recent NHS Clinical AI fellowship and commercial role as Chief Medical Officer at Megi health, she works at the intersection of clinical medicine, data science, technology and AI.

Her current programme of research focuses on the intersection of healthcare and technology; leveraging advances such as smartphone based vital signs capture and large language models to drive forward scalable innovation in maternal cardiovascular care.

She has published over 20 peer-reviewed manuscripts (See gScholar, h-index 12), including award-winning work recognized by Hypertension Journal.

She was awarded an AI visionary award in 2025 by Health Innovation KSS was the recipient of the 2024 International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy Zuspan prize.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Aspect Health Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.