Talk:Digital Health

Length

Currently, the digital health wiki page has a little above 1300 words. This falls short of the required word count of the assignment, however, I see that there is space left to include other information later on. Looking at the skeleton of the wiki page it seems very likely that you will be able to meet the word count requirement without difficulties.

Structure

Introduction: The introduction does an excellent job at giving a simple, yet complete, review of what follows on the rest of the page. I thought the inclusion of examples at the beginning was very helpful because right away it gives the reader an idea of what digital health is and how it may be intertwined in their life. This is a good way to pull a reader in and keep them curious throughout the article. The introduction highlights almost every section without going into too much detail and also incorporates information from credible sources to show the validity of the information. I think the introduction is very good and the only thing I would tweak on it would be to include a little bit of information or at least a brief introduction about the AI Bias subsection because all the other criticisms are mentioned in the introduction besides this one.

Body: The body of the article is composed of three main sections, four including the references section. The three sections are technologies, criticisms, Recent applications, and references in this order. I like the flow of the article and this organization of topics seems to fit well. Having recent applications at the end really ties the entire article together and brings a recent, real-world example to connect with the reader one last time. While reading the body of the article, I came across a few grammatical and spelling errors that can be easily fixed with proofreading. In the mobile health section, there is a word spelled “mhealth” which I believe is supposed to be spelled health and one of the mobile health app categories is “seld-diagnosis” which I think is supposed to be self-diagnosis. I think the telemedicine section might be improved if there was a little bit more background information on telemedicine itself. I think providing information on the type of diagnosis that a doctor can make over telemedicine and the type of issues that are usually treated over telemedicine may be beneficial for this section. Besides this little suggestion, I think the section for telemedicine is very thorough and it does a good job of covering the topic. I really enjoyed reading the final section on Covid-19. As a volunteer at a local clinic last year I endured many of the challenges you have mentioned and could relate to the information.

References and Reliable Sources: The information throughout the entire article is cited by a variety of sources. I think you did a really good job making sure to cite all the information you could have gotten from other sources to avoid plagiarism and other bad writing practices. The sources themselves seem very reliable. All of the sources seem to be from government pages such as the FDA, renowned news outlets like Forbes, or from published scientific literature.

Clarity

The main issues are not clear but that is because the ethical concerns section is not written. There is a good sneak peek of the topics you will be discussing in your introduction paragraph that briefly covers the issue. From the headings alone of the different criticisms, you will be discussing it is pretty clear where the ethical concerns lie and how they affect patients and healthcare.

Objective Reporting (Neutral Point of View)

The sections included so far in the rough draft all seem to do a good job of remaining neutral. It does not seem like you are taking sides or heavily including information from one side or the other. I think it is very important to continue this because I feel that the most challenging section to stay neutral will be the criticism section so I would just remain vigilant and cautious when writing that section. Overall, I think you did a fantastic job in emulating the style of wiki articles and I would just continue doing what you have done so far for the rough draft.