Psychology and Cognitive Sciences · Vol. 3, No. 3 · 2017 · pp. 89–93 · e-ISSN 2380-727X

Technology and the Brain: Lessons from Patient Care, Social Media and the Internet

Donald M. Hilty

Chair of Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine and Residency Program Director Professor and Clinical Scholar, Keck School of Medicine at USC Strategic Advisor, Research and Health Services, Aligned Telehealth, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USAUnited States

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17140/pcsoj-3-128 · Published 2017-07-25 · Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 · © 2017 The Author(s)

Also available as PDF (figures and tables appear in the PDF).

Abstract

Technology is sweeping through our society in unparalleled fashion, affecting our day-to-day life, education, social relationships, healthcare and business. Our human experience and neuroscience both determine how we interface with technology such that we have “good” (i.e., enjoyment, excitement) and “bad” (i.e., stress) experiences. With regard to healthcare, the patient-centered era features quality, affordable, and timely care; technology is a key part of that, particularly among younger generations. Indeed, the consumer movement related to new technologies may be passing some clinicians by, as new ways of communicating with others (text, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, social media). More reflection is needed on how technology “changes” us, may become the focus of our worst attributes and causes significant problems (e.g., pathological Internet use, privacy/confidentiality breeches). Research approaches and frameworks are needed across many fields and disciplines of science, medicine and human behavior regarding our use of technology.

Conclusions

Technology is part of our regular life activities and it may have healthy and unhealthy dimensions. Educators, researchers and technologists may need to learn more about these pros and cons of technology. It may also be worthwhile to reflect on personal and professional boundaries related to technology. Clinicians may have to add questions to interviews in order to learn how social media, e-mail, texts and apps impact a patient’s life, communication, and illness. They also need a dependable evidence base on which to make decisions. These topics above appear to dovetail with findings from the research on smartphones,36 violent television and video games. 37 These technologies affect attention, learning, and memory in ways that may go unnoticed by participants. Multitasking may work for some moments, but be problematic at other times.

More research appears indicated regarding the social, psychological, cultural, and biological contributors to cognition related to technology. Perhaps teams of scientists and clinicians across professions and disciplines are best equipped to sort out the complexities both studies of healthy adults (and other ages) and patient populations could be beneficial, using a variety of methodologies. The inclusion of statistics, mathematical models, and other quantitative sciences could also shed light on what works and what doesn’t.

Conflicts Of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. SeligmanMEPTierneyJ. We aren’t built to live in the moment. The New York Times. May 19, 2017
  2. PrattDD. Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education. Malabar, FL, USA: Krieger Publishing, 1998
  3. KolbD. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1984
  4. HebbDO. Distinctive features of learning in the higher animal. In: Delafresnaye JF, ed. Brain Mechanisms and Learning. London, UK: Oxford University Press; 1961
  5. VandelanotteCReevesMMBrugJDe BourdeaudhuijI. A randomized trial of sequential and simultaneous multiple behavior change interventions for physical activity and fat intake. Prev Med. 2008; 46(3): 232-237. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.00810.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.008
  6. FacioneNCFacionePA. Critical thinking and clinical judgment. In: Critical Thinking and Clinical Reasoning in the Health Sciences. Hermosa Beach, CA, USA: California Academic Press; 2008: 1-13
  7. ScrivenMPaulR. Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. paper presented at: 8 th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform; 1987; Rohnert Park, CA, USA
  8. KahnemanD. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York City, NY, USA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012
  9. SimontonDK. Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: Combinational models of exceptional creativ ity. Physics of Life Rev. 2010; 7(2): 156-179. doi: 10.1016/j. plrev.2010.05.00410.1016/j.plrev.2010.05.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2010.05.004
  10. ChanSTorousJHintonLYellowleesP. Towards a framework for evaluating mobile mental health apps. Telemed J E Health. 2015; 21(12): 1038-1041. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2015.000210.1089/tmj.2015.0002 https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2015.0002
  11. PEW Research Center Internet Survey. 2013. Web site: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/PIP_ HealthOnline.pdf or smart phone information. Or at: http://www. pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/cell-phone-and-smartphoneownership-demographics/. Accessed July 5 2017
  12. Harvard Business Review. How people really use mobile. Web site. https://hbr.org/2013/01/how-people-really-use-mobile. Accessed July 8 2017
  13. Internet World Stats: Usage and Population Statistics. 2015. Web site. http://www.internetworldstats.com. Accessed July 5 2017
  14. BoydDMEllisonNB. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. J Comput-Mediated Commun. 2007; 13(1): 210-230. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
  15. ColeJISumanMSchrammP. The digital future report. In: Dunahee M, ed. World Internet Project. Los Angeles, CA, USA: UCLA Center for Communication Policy; 2013: 181
  16. HiltyDMChanSTorousJMatmahurJMucicD. New Page 93 frontiers in healthcare and technology: Internet- and webbased mental options emerge to complement in-person and telepsychiatric care options. J Health Med Informatics. 2015; 6(4): 1-14
  17. TsivosZLCalamRSandersMRWittkowskiA. A pilot randomised controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the Baby Triple P Positive Parenting Programme in mothers with postnatal depression. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014; 1-23. doi: 10.1177/135910451453158910.1177/1359104514531589 https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104514531589
  18. MilesAMezzichJ. The care of the patient and the soul of the clinic: Person-centered medicine as an emergent model of modern clinical practice. Int J Pers Centered Med. 2011; 1(2): 207-222. doi: 10.5750/ijpcm.v1i2.6110.5750/ijpcm.v1i2.61 https://doi.org/10.5750/ijpcm.v1i2.61
  19. EkmanISwedbergKTaftC. Person-centered careready for prime time. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011; 10(4): 248- 251. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2011.06.00810.1016/j.ejcnurse.2011.06.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2011.06.008
  20. HiltyDMSrinivasanMXiongG. Lessons from psychiatry and psychiatric education for medical learners and teachers. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2013; 25(3): 329-337. doi: 10.3109/09540261.2013.79412910.3109/09540261.2013.794129 https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2013.794129
  21. HiltyDM. Advancing science, clinical care and education: Shall we update engel’s biopsychosocial model to a Biopsychosocio-cultural model? Psychol Cogn Sci Open J. 2015; 1(1): e1e6. doi: 10.17140/PCSOJ-1-e00110.17140/pcsoj-1-e001 https://doi.org/10.17140/pcsoj-1-e001
  22. FrankishKRyanCHarrisA. Psychiatry and online social media: Potential, pitfalls and ethical guidelines for psychiatrists and trainees. Australas Psychiatry. 2012; 20(3): 181-187. doi: 10.1177/103985621244788110.1177/1039856212447881 https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856212447881
  23. HiltyDMNesbittTSKuennethCA. How telepsy chiatry affects the doctor-patient relationship: Communication, satisfaction, and additional clinically relevant issues. Primary Psychiatry. 2002; 9(9): 29-34
  24. OchsmanRBChapanisA. The effects of 10 communication modes on the behavior of teams during co-operative problemsolving. Int J Man-Machine Stud. 1974; 6(5): 579-619. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7373(74)80019-210.1016/s0020-7373(74)80019-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7373(74)80019-2
  25. HiltyDMBelitskyRCohenMB. Impact of the information age on residency training: Communication, access to public information, and clinical care. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(1): 104-107. doi: 10.1007/s40596-014-0196-610.1007/s40596-014-0196-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-014-0196-6
  26. MoubarakGGuiotABenhamouYBenhamouAHaririS. Facebook activity of residents and fellows and its impact on the doctor-patient relationship. J Med Ethics. 2011; 37(2): 101-104. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.03629310.1136/jme.2010.036293 https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.036293
  27. HiltyDMSnowdyCEShoemakerEZ. Social media and clinical practice: Why it is popular, tips/guidelines on how to work with patients, and dealing with pathological internet use. Med Res Arch. In press
  28. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statisti cal Manual. 5th ed. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychiatric Publishing, Incorporated; 2013
  29. YoungKS. Internet addiction: The emergence of a new Clinical disorder. Cyberpsychology Behav. 1998; 1(3): 237-244. doi: 10.1089/cpb.1998.1.23710.1089/cpb.1998.1.237 https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237
  30. YoungK. Assessment of Internet addiction. 2008. Web site. http://www.globaladdiction.org/dldocs/GLOBALADDIC-TION-Scales-InternetAddictionTest.pdf.Accessed July 5 2017
  31. ByunSRuffiniCMillsJE. Internet addiction: Metasynthesis of 1996-2006 quantitative research. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009; 12(2): 203-207. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.010210.1089/cpb.2008.0102 https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0102
  32. KussDJGriffithsMDKarilaLBillieuxJ. Internet addiction: A systematic review of epidemiological research for the last decade. Curr Pharm Des. 2013; 20(25): 4026-4052
  33. LamLTWongEM. Stress moderates the relationship between problematic internet use by parents and problematic internet use by adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2015; 56(3): 300-306. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.26310.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.263 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.263
  34. CarliVDurkeeTWassermanD. The association between pathological internet use and comorbid psychopathology: A systematic review. Psychopathology. 2013; 46(1): 1-13. doi: 10.1159/00033797110.1159/000337971 https://doi.org/10.1159/000337971
  35. BlockJJ. Issues for DSM-5: Internet addiction. Am J Psychiatry. 2008; 165(3): 306-307. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007. 0710155610.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07101556 https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07101556
  36. WilmerHHShermanLECheinJM. Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Front Psychol. 2017; 8: 605. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0060510.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605
  37. Hartmann T, Krakowiak KD, Tsay-V ogel M. How violent video games communicate violence: A literature review and content analysis of moral disengagement factors. Commun Manag. 2014; 7751: 1-23. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2014.922206 https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.922206