Millennials and younger generations expect to use their own technologies and biological data to help doctors deliver more personal care.
Caring for a rapidly ageing population is challenging. Experts working to revitalize healthcare for the 21 century are tackling this challenge by shifting from a one-size-fits-all to a more personalized healthcare approach, one that is heavily influenced by how young people use technology.
To combat skyrocketing healthcare costs for an American population of 326 million people spanning six generations, experts are turning to bioscience and new technologies as well as to young, tech-savvy digital natives who are already nudging healthcare into the Internet age.
"We're already seeing that millennials and younger generations won't be the same kinds of patients as their parents," said Eric Dishman, an Intel Fellow and general manager of Intel's Health and Life Sciences.
"These 18-to-34 year olds already expect to have data and tools to help them manage their health just like they do for everything else in their lives."
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Sunday November 15 2015, @05:26PM
But they're so good at using the apps!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @06:47PM
Consider the following review on Amazon [amazon.com]:
Yeah, that sounds about right for the vibe I get every time one of these articles is posted (and it seems to be a favorite source of Phoenix666). This is probably where almost all of the graphene articles come from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @07:46PM
condescending smarm
It's called 'humor'. You know, the thing you don't have?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:49PM
He's right that phys.org and its related cretins are clickbait garbage, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:57PM
Who actually reads the article though? I just read the headline and then proceed to shitpost in the comment section.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @10:21PM
Which limits the flame potential cuz that would be the end of that. If the articles actually have some bit of substance, somebody would soon enough go and read the thing (sorry fools that they are), and come back and rant "that's not what it's about, you morons", and begins the next stage of multi-way gang-bang of flame trail - so much more satisfying.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 16 2015, @02:11AM
Look up top. It says "posted by cmn32480".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Monday November 16 2015, @05:36PM
Please feel free to submit alternatives. Submissions are accepted from Anonymous Cowards. We publish them regularly.
Phys.org is a convenient place to pull submissions from because they aggregate from a large number of other websites and give out nice little bits like direct links to the published papers. Many other places we have to go hunting for the original source or referenced paper, and that makes it a lot harder and more time consuming for the volunteer editing staff.
If you don't like sourcing from phys.org, go to the original articles that they pull from and submit them.
Be part of the solution to the problem you perceive. Don't just bitch about it and expect the rest of us to do the heavy lifting.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson