ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2019
A Patient-Centered Proposal for Bayesian Analysis of Self-Experiments for Health.
Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- "The More You Give the Wearable, the More It Gives You": How Regular Exercisers Navigate Exercise Using Wearable Devices.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2026Article
- Engagements with Generative AI and Personal Health Informatics: Opportunities for Planning, Tracking, Reflecting, and Acting around Personal Health Data.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2025Article
- Informing the Design of Individualized Self-Management Regimens from the Human, Data, and Machine Learning Perspectives.ACM transactions on computer-human interaction : a publication of the Association for Computing Machinery · 2025Article
- From Reflection to Action: Combining Machine Learning with Expert Knowledge for Nutrition Goal Recommendations.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2021Article
- "They don't always think about that": Translational Needs in the Design of Personal Health Informatics Applications.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2021Article
- The Importance of Starting With Goals in N-of-1 Studies.Frontiers in digital health · 2020Article
- Examining Opportunities for Goal-Directed Self-Tracking to Support Chronic Condition Management.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rise of affordable sensors and apps has enabled people to monitor various health indicators via self-tracking. This trend encourages self-experimentation, a subset of self-tracking in which a person systematically explores potential causal relationships to try to answer questions about their health. Although recent research has investigated how to support the data collection necessary for self-experiments, less research has considered the best way to analyze data resulting from these self-experiments. Most tools default to using traditional frequentist methods. However, the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality recommends using Bayesian analysis for n-of-1 studies, arguing from a statistical perspective. To develop a complementary patient-centered perspective on the potential benefits of Bayesian analysis, this paper describes types of questions people want to answer via self-experimentation, as informed by 1) our experiences engaging with irritable bowel syndrome patients and their healthcare providers and 2) a survey investigating what questions individuals want to answer about their health and wellness. We provide examples of how those questions might be answered using 1) frequentist null hypothesis significance testing, 2) frequentist estimation, and 3) Bayesian estimation and prediction. We then provide design recommendations for analyses and visualizations that could help people answer and interpret such questions. We find the majority of the questions people want to answer with self-tracking data are better answered with Bayesian methods than with frequentist methods. Our results therefore provide patient-centered support for the use of Bayesian analysis for n-of-1 studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.