3 Comments »

The title of this post did not fit the focus of the text. This post had little if anything to do with personalization. It’s focus was on cost optimization and ROI. Interventions always need to balance cost and efficacy, but that has little to do with “personalizing” an intervention to an individual or group.

Personalizing an intervention means more than putting my name on an option with good ROI. Personalizing an intervention means that it fits my health priorities; it works to leverage my existing patterns of health behavior for maximum effect. It identifies compatible supporting behaviors and puts them to use. It also identifies incompatible discordant behaviors and works to minimize their influence. The intervention is tailored to my particular skill set and abilities. The motivational and persuasive efforts key on my existing priorities. The intervention addresses me in multiple ways and across multiple dimensions so that the focus is not on one risk factor at a time, but on a wholistic paradigm so that reduces multiple risk factors simultaneously.

When you couch intervention cost optimization/ROI in the language of “personalization” you do nothing but create confusion and you erect mental barriers that inhibits the advancement of health and wellness innovation.

Oh, yes. With respect to your example of the 20 item questionnaire with 5 levels each producing “95 trillion combinations”, yes, this is true. But the fact is that I use such a questionnaire as the key tool in my work, and I have 20 years worth of application to show that there are only nine basic patterns or profiles that explain the health behaviors and priorities of 90% of US adults. Once the health and wellness movement recognizes what these nine profiles reveal and the multiple ways they can be leveraged, there will be plenty of ROI to go around.

I certainly agree that “personalization”, “customization”, “tailoring”, or “individualization” can be employed for a variety of purposes in a variety of ways, and in a variety of degrees. It is often applied to segments, for example, such as the nine basic profiles that explain 90% of behavior patterns you mention. On the other hand, I don’t see what the argument is about — Personalization is not an end in itself, but a strategic or tactical means to an end, in this case, to modifying patterns of behavior in order to improve health, reduce risk and manage disease, which in turn is a means to a number of other ends. These may include reducing sickness care costs (they often increase “healthcare” costs in the process), improving employee productivity and performance, improving the health of the community and the nation, and the health/quality of life of people. It is more often used in attempts to get people to buy particular products at the moment, and is probably best used to optimize the value that both the sponsors and recipients of personalized efforts get from the intended behavior changes, but I don’t think that disqualifies the use of “personalization” in the title of the piece. But since personalization allows for differences of opinions among individuals, so be it.

Based on your picture you bare a striking resemblence to my attorney. If I wasn’t good friends with him, it would be kind of erie. Anyway, perhaps my comment was a little strong. I guess I just focused on all the detail you provided on ROI (very good figures, by the way!) and so little “detail” on what personalization or tailoring is really all about. For example, what are the relevant dimensions of tailoring or personalization that should be considered? Do we tailor based on apathy level? Do we tailor based on assertiveness? Do we tailor based on trust?

The power of tailoring will come to the fore when it not only supports greater participation, but also improved efficiency. As one example, one of the nine types that exist in the US has higher disease prevalence and higher claims, but the claims come from over-use of medications, outpatient and diagnostic services. Another type who is just as sick, under-uses medications, and over-uses ERs and requires more hospitalizations. The second type is a passive learner; the first type is an active learner. The differences between the two are both behavioral and attitudinal. With these profiles, we can be more efficient in terms of what areas of demand to focus on, and more effective in communicating because we have a good idea about how they learn. This is detail about how tailoring and personalization can shape tactics and contribute to ROI.

Your comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>