Era of Digital Healthcare: Emergence of the Smart Patient

Article information

Healthc Inform Res. 2025;31(1):107-110
Publication date (electronic) : 2025 January 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2025.31.1.107
1Korea Science Journalist Society, Seoul, Korea
2Graduate School of Public Health and Healthcare Management, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
3The Catholic Institute for Public Health and Healthcare Management, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
4Korean Society of Type 1 Diabetes, Seoul, Korea
5Department of Nursing, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Wonju, Korea
6Department of Nursing, College of Life and Health Sciences, Hoso University, Asan, Korea
7Graduate School of Public Health, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
8College of Nursing, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding Author: Kwangsoo Shin, Graduate School of Public Health and Healthcare Management, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo Daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3147-8467, E-mail: ksshin@catholic.ac.kr (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2437-8166)
Received 2024 October 6; Revised 2025 January 21; Accepted 2025 January 21.

I. Introduction

The digital healthcare paradigm heralds a transformation in the entities within the healthcare industry [1]. In particular, patients—once viewed as passive consumers of healthcare services—are now emerging as “Smart Patients,” a new type of healthcare actor who takes a proactive, leading role in managing their own health, driven by advances in the information society and digital technology [2]. However, despite its importance, discussions about this emerging population remain scarce. This paper explores the evolution, role, and key capabilities of the smart patient and examines ways to enhance them.

II. Digital Healthcare and the Emergence of the Smart Patient

In the 1960s and 1970s, despite innovations in computer technology and electronic medical records, the limited availability of personal technology and the absence of a patient-centered care philosophy restricted patients’ access to their health information, which was primarily held by professionals. Subsequently, the development of personal computers and the Internet gave rise to the “e-patient”—an individual who manages their health by accessing and learning about health information [3,4]. However, during this period, the prefix “smart” was paradoxically used to position patients as objects of smart systems and devices rather than as active agents of intelligence.

In the 2000s, mobile devices enabled patients to monitor their health in real time, analyze health data, and communicate with healthcare professionals. Coinciding with the emergence of a patient-participatory paradigm in healthcare, which emphasizes precision, prediction, and disease prevention, these developments laid the groundwork for patients to become more empowered in managing their health by actively engaging in care planning, a shift further recognized with the advancement of participatory medicine.

Since the 2010s, big data and artificial intelligence technologies have further transformed healthcare. In particular, advances in data science techniques and digital healthcare infrastructure have created an environment that facilitates the launch of patient-tailored healthcare services and greater patient participation, thereby demanding increased “smartness” from patients.

III. Ontological Meaning of Smart Patient

The emerging term “smart patient” describes patients who become active subjects in managing their health as they acquire more information about themselves through advances in health technology [5]. These empowered patients influence healthcare by sharing information and forming communities [6], thereby becoming stakeholders in the healthcare system alongside traditional providers. Because digital technologies serve as connectors between patients’ bodies, devices, and mediated services in the digital realm, smart patients also collaborate with healthcare professionals and digital tools [7].

However, these technologies also introduce risks and ethical uncertainties. Patients should advocate for patient-centeredness by participating in decision-making processes regarding technology assessment and target setting [8]. They also function as innovators or lead users—driving technology adoption in its early stages—and as co-creator who shape innovations based on their experiences and the perceived value of new technologies [9,10].

IV. New Roles and Necessary Competencies of the Smart Patient

1. Smart Patient as a Self-Health Manager through Digital Healthcare

Smart patients are self-health managers who translate health data into actionable information and learn about diseases and available care options. Digital health technologies are valuable allies in health management, yet patients must remain the key actors, especially in the era of information overload. To achieve this, patients need to develop new literacies that integrate health, science, digital, information, and media skills in order to identify trustworthy information tailored to their needs [11]. With this foundation, patients can become “digital citizens,” bridging the digital divide and ultimately improving digital health equity [12,13].

2. Smart Patients as Health Communicator for Digital Healthcare

Smart patients can drive technology diffusion by educating fellow patients on how to use advanced devices and by suggesting improvements [14]. They can also collaborate with healthcare providers to ensure that new technologies meet both field requirements and patient needs, thereby advocating for a patient-centered approach [15]. Furthermore, they can engage with policymakers to foster a better healthcare environment. This involvement is essential for adapting digital healthcare in practice and for successfully implementing realistic and fair policies.

3. Smart Patients as Co-Creator of Digital Healthcare

Smart patients can also serve as co-creator in product and service innovation, maximizing the benefits derived from these technologies [16]. They contribute to “demand articulation” in user experience design by evaluating and refining prototypes developed by healthcare product manufacturers, ultimately improving usability [17,18]. For example, in living labs, the Korean Society of Type 1 Diabetes collaborated with “Night Scouts” to gather data for developing or demonstrating prototypes of an artificial pancreas. Figure 1 depicts a conceptual diagram of the new roles of the smart patient.

Figure 1

Conceptual diagram of new roles of the smart patient.

V. Conclusion

The smart patient has evolved alongside digital healthcare, repositioning themselves as active participants in self-health management, health communication, and co-creation within digital healthcare. However, they cannot exist in isolation. Their success requires collaborative efforts from all stakeholders—including competency assessment, education, information sharing, participation, and empowerment—to build a patient-centered health system that leverages opportunities while addressing technological challenges. These considerations should be integrated into a holistic framework that promotes patient empowerment [13,19], consistent with the World Health Organization’s 2020 framework, which identifies patient “empowerment” as key to achieving better outcomes [20]. While this paper provides an overview of the smart patient, future research involving stakeholders should further refine the definition of the smart patient in digital health diffusion.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

1. Mathews SC, McShea MJ, Hanley CL, Ravitz A, Labrique AB, Cohen AB. Digital health: a path to validation. NPJ Digit Med 2019;2:38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0111-3.
2. Lupton D. The digitally engaged patient: self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Soc Theory Health 2013;11:256–70. https://doi.org/10.1057/sth.2013.10.
3. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2006;63(1–2):24–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.006.
4. Ferguson T, Frydman G. The first generation of e-patients. BMJ 2004;328(7449):1148–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1148.
5. DeWalt DA, Boone RS, Pignone MP. Literacy and its relationship with self-efficacy, trust, and participation in medical decision making. Am J Health Behav 2007;31(Suppl 1):S27–35. https://doi.org/10.5555/ajhb.2007.31.supp.S27.
6. Househ M, Borycki E, Kushniruk A. Empowering patients through social media: the benefits and challenges. Health Informatics J 2014;20(1):50–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213476969.
7. Liu Z, Shi Y, Yang B. Open innovation in times of crisis: an overview of the healthcare sector in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex 2022;8(1):21. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010021.
8. Cozza M, Bruzzone S, Crevani L. Materialities of care for older people: caring together/apart in the political economy of caring apparatus. Health Sociol Rev 2021;30(3):308–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2021.1976067.
9. Wani TA, Ali SW. Innovation diffusion theory. J Gen Manag Res 2015. 2(2)98–115. https://www.scmsnoida.ac.in/article-tahir-ahmad-wani.
10. Ciasullo MV, Lim WM, Manesh MF, Palumbo R. The patient as a prosumer of healthcare: insights from a bibliometric-interpretive review. J Health Organ Manag 2022;36(9):133–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-11-2021-0401.
11. Sorensen K. Smart health! Expanding the need for new literacies. In : Purnat TD, Nguyen T, Briand S, eds. Managing infodemics in the 21st century Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2023. p. 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27789-4_6.
12. Powell J, Deetjen U. Characterizing the digital health citizen: mixed-methods study deriving a new typology. J Med Internet Res 2019;21(3):e11279. https://doi.org/10.2196/11279.
13. Campanozzi LL, Gibelli F, Bailo P, Nittari G, Sirignano A, Ricci G. The role of digital literacy in achieving health equity in the third millennium society: a literature review. Front Public Health 2023;11:1109323. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1109323.
14. Madmoli M, Khodadadi M, Ahmadi FP, Niksefat MA. A systematic review on the impact of peer education on self-care behaviors of patients. Int J Health Biol Sci 2019;2(1):1–5.
15. Sharpe VA, Faden AI. Appropriateness in patient care: a new conceptual framework. Milbank Q 1996;74(1):115–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/3350435.
16. Gambardella A, Raasch C, von Hippel E. The user innovation paradigm: impacts on markets and welfare. Manag Sci 2017;63(5):1450–68. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2393.
17. Westerlund M, Leminen S, Habib C. Key constructs and a definition of living labs as innovation platforms. Technol Innov Manag Rev 2018;8(12):52–61. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1205.
18. Archibald MM, Wittmeier K, Gale M, Ricci F, Russell K, Woodgate RL. Living labs for patient engagement and knowledge exchange: an exploratory sequential mixed methods study to develop a living lab in paediatric rehabilitation. BMJ Open 2021;11(5):e041530. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041530.
19. Kim H, Schnall R, Yoon N, Koh SJ, Lee J, Cheon JH. Development and Validation of a Mobile-Centered Digital Health Readiness Scale (mDiHERS): health literacy and equity scale. J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e58497. https://doi.org/10.2196/58497.
20. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2020: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals [Internet] Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2020. [cited at 2024 Aug 27]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240005105.

Article information Continued

Figure 1

Conceptual diagram of new roles of the smart patient.