Healthcare providers of all types will benefit from acknowledging Gen Z’s preference for digital interactions, self-testing, and over-the-counter medications
Each generation has its own unique connection to how it manages its health, and the latest studies into the healthcare habits of Generation Z (aka, Gen Z or Zoomers) are providing valuable insight that savvy clinical laboratory managers and pathologists—in fact all healthcare providers—can use to better serve their Gen Z patients.
According to McKinsey and Company, Gen Z’s “identity has been shaped by the digital age, climate anxiety, a shifting financial landscape, and COVID-19.” And Pew Research states that Zoomers “are also digital natives who have little or no memory of the world as it existed before smartphones.”
As the largest demographic, “Gen Z stands 2.6 billion members strong. … Globally, they hold purchasing power of more than $500 billion and mobile buying power of $143 billion,” wrote Stacy Rapacon, Managing Editor at Senior Executive Media, in an article she penned for HP’s The Garage.
Meeting Gen Zers’ healthcare needs on their terms would seem to be a judicious choice.
“Gen-Z’s buying power may exceed $3 trillion,” wrote Bernhard Schroeder (above), a clinical lecturer on integrated/online marketing at San Diego State University, in Forbes. “Their spending ability exceeds the gross domestic product of all but about 25 of the world’s countries.” Thus, it behooves healthcare leaders, including clinical laboratory managers and pathologists, to consider how best to approach treating Gen Z patients. (Photo copyright: San Diego State University.)
Gen Z Leads in Digital Healthcare Use, Self-testing, OTC Drugs
“Gen Z engages in every type of digital healthcare activity more than other generations,” a recent study by PYMNTS noted. A total of 2,735 consumers were surveyed, and though all reported using digital healthcare to some degree, Gen Z stood out.
Patient portal access was the highest digital method accessed by Zoomers (62%), followed by telemedicine appointment usage (55%), the PYMNTS report found.
Knowing the direction Gen Z is trending may lead clinical laboratory leaders to expect self-testing to be on the rise, and that hunch would be correct. “There are two converging trends; the rise of women’s health technology and increased use of at-home sample collection for diagnosis tests,” Clinical Lab Products reported.
“Ongoing innovation in these areas could significantly improve the accessibility of women’s health testing. It will also have repercussions for labs, potentially changing the way samples are received and processed, and the way results are distributed. The quantity and quality of samples may be impacted, too. It’s important for labs to be aware of likely developments so they can prepare, and potentially collaborate with the health technology companies driving change,” CLP noted.
Another area feeling the impact of Gen Z’s healthcare spending is the over-the-counter (OTC) drug market.
“Since the pandemic began, more Americans are paying closer attention to their symptoms and looking for easily accessible information about over-the-counter medications, especially for allergies, coughs, and headaches,” said Kim Castro, Editor and Chief Content Officer for US News and World Report, in a press release.
Zoomers Want Healthcare on Their Own Terms
Gen Z grew up with the internet, Amazon, Netflix, Google, and social media since birth.
“The ‘norm’ they experienced as children was a world that operated at speed, scale, and scope. They developed an early facility with powerful digital tools that allowed them to be self-reliant as well as collaborative,” anthropologist Roberta Katz, PhD, a senior research scholar at Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) told Stanford News.
As digital natives, Gen Z can be more science and data driven and yet still expect to find health advice on YouTube or TikTok. According to an article published by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, “Gen Z is the first generation to grow up surrounded by digital devices, and they expect their health benefits to be digital, too. From choosing a benefits package to finding a provider, Gen Z wants to take care of their health on their own terms. And that may just include video chatting with a doctor from the back of an Uber.”
In its 2022 US Digital Health Survey, research firm Insider Intelligence found that “Half of Gen Z adults turn to social media platforms for health-related purposes, either all the time or often.”
“Gen-Z will make up 31% of the world’s population by 2021 and they have deeply formed perceptions and beliefs … This has led to an amazing change in the way Gen-Z is disrupting several industries simultaneously,” wrote Bernhard Schroeder (above), a clinical lecturer on integrated/online marketing at San Diego State University, in Forbes.
What Can Clinical Laboratories Learn from These Findings
Gen Z seeks accuracy and trustworthy information. “Gen-Zers’ natural penchant for skepticism and frugality—coupled with low levels of confidence in the US healthcare system—makes them less likely to trust providers, more likely to research prices before seeking care, and more apt to worry that their health insurance won’t cover their treatment,” Insider Intelligence noted.
According to Contract Pharma, “Gen Z is concerned with holistic health and self-care, rather than a one size fits all pharmaceutical approach. They share a hesitancy for traditional healthcare models but with very interesting differences. By understanding these differences, the consumer healthcare industry can focus on agile and distinctive brands to harness Gen Z’s tremendous purchasing power.”
Savvy clinical laboratory leaders can better serve their Gen-Z client physicians and patients by better understanding why Zoomers are more inclined to order their own lab tests (without a physician), collect their own specimens to send into labs, and/or collect their own specimens to do home testing (think COVID-19 self-test kits). Zoomers may need an entirely new business model from their healthcare providers, including clinical laboratories.
Might clinical laboratories soon be called on to conduct mass testing to find people who show little or no symptoms even though they are infected with the coronavirus?
Clinical laboratory managers understand that as demand for COVID-19 testing exceeds supplies, what testing is done is generally performed on symptomatic patients. And yet, it is the asymptomatic individuals—those who are shown to be infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, but who experience no symptoms of the illness—who may hold the key to creating effective treatments and vaccinations.
So, as the COVID-19 pandemic persists, scientists are asking why some people who are infected remain asymptomatic, while others die. Why do some patients get severely ill and others do not? Researchers at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and Stanford University School of Medicine (Stanford Medicine) are attempting to answer these questions as they investigate viral transmission, masking, immunity, and more.
And pressure is increasing on researchers to find the answer. According to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and Professor of Medicine at UCSF, millions of people may be asymptomatic and unknowingly spreading the virus. Gandhi is also Associate Division Chief (Clinical Operations/Education) of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at UCSF’s Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center.
“If we did a mass testing campaign on 300 million Americans right now, I think the rate of asymptomatic infection would be somewhere between 50% and 80% of cases,” she told UCSF Magazine.
On a smaller scale, her statement was borne out. In a study conducted in San Francisco’s Mission District during the first six weeks of the city’s shelter-in-place order, UCSF researchers conducted SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR and antibody (Abbott ARCHITECT IgG) testing on 3,000 people. Approximately 53% tested positive for COVID-19 but had no symptoms such as fever, cough, and muscle aches, according to data reported by Carina Marquez, MD, UCSF Assistant Professor of Medicine and co-author of the study, in The Mercury News.
Pandemic Control’s Biggest Challenge: Asymptomatic People
In an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Gandhi wrote that transmission of the virus by asymptomatic people is the “Achilles heel of COVID-19 pandemic control.”
In her article, Gandhi compared SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, to SARS-CoV-1, the coronavirus that caused the 2003 SARS epidemic. One difference lies in how the virus sheds. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, that takes place in the upper respiratory tract, but with SARS-CoV-1, it takes place in the lower tract. In the latter, symptoms are more likely to be detected, Gandhi explained. Thus, asymptomatic carriers of the coronavirus may go undetected.
“Viral loads with SARS-CoV-1, which are associated with symptom onset, peak a median of five days later than viral loads with SARS-CoV-2, which makes symptom-based detection of infection more effective in the case of SARS-CoV-1,” Gandhi wrote. “With influenza, persons with asymptomatic disease generally have lower quantitative viral loads in secretions from the upper respiratory tract than from the lower respiratory tract and a shorter duration of viral shedding than persons with symptoms, which decreases the risk of transmission from paucisymptomatic persons.”
Rick Wright (above), an insurance broker in Redwood City, Calif., was infected with the COVID-19 coronavirus while aboard a Diamond Princess Cruise. He underwent 40 days of isolation, and though he consistently tested positive for the coronavirus, he experienced no symptoms of the illness. “I never felt sick. Not a cough, wheezing, headache. Absolutely nothing,” he told Mercury News. (Photo copyright: The Mercury News.)
Stanford Studies Immune Responses in COVID-19 Patients
Meanwhile, scientists at the Stanford University School of Medicine were on their own quest to find out why COVID-19 causes severe disease in some people and mild symptoms in others.
“One of the great mysteries of COVID-19 infections has been that some people develop severe disease, while others seem to recover quickly. Now, we have some insight into why that happens,” Bali Pulendran, PhD, Stanford Professor of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology and Senior Author of the study in a Stanford Medicine news release.
The Stanford research suggested that three molecules—EN-RAGE, TNFSF14, and oncostatin-M—“correlated with disease and increased bacterial products in human plasma” of COVID-19 patients.
“Our multiplex analysis of plasma cytokines revealed enhanced levels of several proinflammatory cytokines and a strong association of the inflammatory mediators EN-RAGE, TNFSF14, and OSM with clinical severity of the disease,” the scientists wrote in Science.
Pulendran hypothesized that the molecules originated in patients’ lungs, which was the infection site.
“These findings reveal how the immune system goes awry during coronavirus infections, leading to severe disease and point to potential therapeutic targets,” Pulendran said in the news release, adding, “These three molecules and their receptors could represent attractive therapeutic targets in combating COVID-19.”
Clinical Laboratories May Do More Testing of Asymptomatic People
The research continues. In a televised news conference, President Trump said COVID-19 testing plays an important role in “preventing transmission of the virus.” Clearly this is true and learning why some people who are infected experience little or no symptoms may be key to defeating COVID-19.
Thus, as the nation reopens, clinical laboratories may want to find ways to offer COVID-19 testing beyond hospitalized symptomatic patients and people who show up at independent labs with doctors’ orders. As supplies permit, laboratory managers may want to partner with providers in their communities to identify people who are asymptomatic and appear to be well, but who may be transmitting the coronavirus.
As science learns more about the human genome, new companies are being formed to offer consumers at-home microbiology test kits, a development many microbiologists consider worrisome
Can consumers rely on the accuracy of at-home microbiology tests that promise to give them useful information about their microbiome? That’s just one question being asked by clinical laboratory scientists and microbiologists in response to the proliferation of companies offering such tests.
Advances in gene sequencing technology, new insights into the human microbiome, and more sophisticated software to analyze test data are fueling the growth of companies that want to offer consumers at-home microbiology test kits. And no less an authority than the American Academy of Microbiology (ASM) states in a 2017 report, that knowledge of the microbiome can revolutionize healthcare as “insights acquired from NGS [next-generation sequencing] methods can be exploited to improve our health as individuals and the greater public health.”
The move towards more “precision medicine” in terms of diagnostics and treatments, according to the ASM, is based in part on microbial genomic testing, which when combined with a patient’s medical history, clinical signs, symptoms, and human genomic information, can help “create treatment pathways that are individualized and tailored for each patient.”
However, critics worry about overreach given current limitations in the analysis and diagnosis of microbiome data produced by testing, particularly in connection to the rising number of consumer self-testing services aimed at the general public.
No Science to Back Up Claims of Accuracy for At-Home Microbiology Tests
A recent article from the MIT Technology Review, notes that these at-home microbiology testing services, while exciting, can only offer limited information—despite claims. Companies such as Thryve, for example, offer visitors to their website a $99 gut health kit, which they recommend using four times per year. The goal is to use the data to target regimens of supplements and “correct” problems the testing identifies.
Another company, uBiome, offers physician-ordered and customer-requested test kits that the company suggests can determine risk factors for disease. However, critics suggest science cannot currently back up those claims. Concerns about the value of such consumer self-testing, the legitimacy of recommendations based on “diagnoses,” and basic health privacy are leading to serious concerns within the scientific community.
Ethics and Realistic Expectations
One additional criticism of consumer self-testing of microbiomes involves privacy. An NPR article on the American Gut Project (AGP), which Dark Daily reported on in previous e-briefings, notes that those tested may be disclosing quite a bit of information about themselves. The article’s author points out basic privacy and value concerns about the AGP. American Gut Project is a crowd-funded “citizen science project,” and part of the larger global Earth Microbiome Project, described as a “massively collaborative effort to characterize microbial life on this planet.” (See Dark Daily, “Get the Poop on Organisms Living in Your Gut with a New Consumer Laboratory Test Offered by American Gut and uBiome,” September 9, 2015.)
One example of an at-home microbiology test marketed to consumers is the SmartGut by uBiome (above). It is “a microbiome screening test that uses precision sequencing technology to identify key microorganisms in your gut, both pathogenic and commensal.” (Photo copyright: uBiome.)
In her blog post on the Center for Microbiome Informatics and Therapeutics’ website, Tami Lieberman, PhD, claims that “microbiome profiling is messy (and I’m not just talking about the sample collection).” Lieberman submitted samples to American Gut and uBiome for her article. Lieberman’s skepticism of the services is based on two things:
1. There is no “gold standard” for microbiome DNA profiling technology or analysis methods at this time; and,
2. Human microbiomes are in her words, “a moving target, changing with age and diet.”
Thus, the best these services can provide, Lieberman argues, is a snapshot of gut microbes at one period of time. Additionally, she claims there is a danger in trying to interpret personal microbiome data. And, Lieberman is not alone in her criticism.
Science Must Be ‘On Guard’ Against Hype about the Usefulness of Microbiome Tests
Martin Blaser, MD, PhD, Director of the Human Microbiome Project at New York University, also criticizes at-home self-tests of microbiomes. In a New York Times article, Blaser points out that the enormous amount of data generated by microbiome testing is “basically uninterpretable” at this time. According to Blaser, scientists can chart the presence, absence, and levels of specific microbiomes and note correlations, but there is no way to know if changes to microbiomes in a particular patient signal disease risk, progression, or development.
The study of microbiomes is still in its nascent stages, so despite there being significant information correlating the presence or absence of specific microbes to diseases, Blaser states that scientists are currently unsure of what that correlation implies. They simply know the correlations exist.
The “gold rush” of companies offering consumers an at-home microbiology test requires skepticism, notes Hanage. He further urges researchers, press officers, and journalists to remain objective. Hanage writes, “Press officers must stop exaggerating results, and journalists must stop swallowing them whole.” Hanage warns that scientists should be on guard against the “buzz around the field” distorting scientific priorities and misleading the public at large. So, while studies of the human microbiome do carry vast potential for medical laboratories and pathologists to change healthcare and healthcare diagnostics, a healthy dose of skepticism is still the best medicine.
Cloud-based genetic research networks that facilitate collaboration by stakeholders worldwide may solve the most difficult disease challenges, including a cure for cancer
Coming soon to a clinical laboratory near you: cloud-based “big data” genome analysis! A new industry is emerging dedicated to accepting, storing, and analyzing vast quantities of data generated by next-generation gene sequencing and whole human-genome sequencing.
There are already examples of academic departments of pathology and laboratory medicine that have outsourced the storage and annotation of whole human genomes sequenced from tissue specimens collected from cancer patients. The annotated genomes are returned to the referring pathologists for analysis. (more…)
Researchers use patient’s whole genome to predict his risk for 55 different health conditions
For pathologists, the day draws ever closer when they will use a patient’s whole genome sequence for diagnostic purposes. That’s the implication from research being done at the University of Stanford Medical School where scientists recently made a leap forward in advancing practical application of the human genome to patient care.
Stanford researchers recently announced that, for the first time, a healthy person’s complete DNA was sequenced, then used to create an easy-to-use, cumulative risk report. This study model could catapult patient genomic analysis into clinical laboratories even as it adds personalized medicine to the doctor’s black bag of diagnostic tools within the decade. The Stanford study team reported these findings in a recent issue of Lancet.
