Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32190619›Full record

ArticlemHealth2020

mHealth and patient generated health data: stakeholder perspectives on opportunities and barriers for transforming healthcare.

Danielle C Lavallee, Jenney R Lee, Elizabeth Austin, Richard Bloch, Sarah O Lawrence, Debbe McCall, Sean A Munson, Mara B Nery-Hurwit, Dagmar Amtmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Unleashing the Potential for Patient-Generated Health Data (PGHD).Journal of general internal medicine · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Danielle C LavalleeDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jenney R LeeDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Elizabeth AustinDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Richard BlochDigital Healthcare I/O, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sarah O LawrenceDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Debbe McCallRowan Tree Perspectives, LLC., Murrieta, CA, USA.
Sean A MunsonDepartment of Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mara B Nery-HurwitFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Dagmar AmtmannDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWearable devices, mobile health apps, and geolocation technologies place the ability to track, monitor and report data in the individuals' hands - or on their bodies. These innovations create an opportunity for "connected health," where individuals collect data outside of the healthcare encounter and report it to care providers. Collection of such patient-generated health data (PGHD) has the potential to impact the delivery of healthcare through remote monitoring, and by allowing patients and healthcare teams to provide targeted and efficient care that aligns with the health status of individual patients.

methodsTo understand the value and barriers associated with clinical integration of PGHD we engaged a range of stakeholders, examining their perspectives and experiences of PGHD use. We conducted open-ended interviews with healthcare consumers (patients and care partners), healthcare providers, and healthcare administrators. Open recruitment and purposive sampling were utilized to identify participants that represented the breadth of PGHD use in research and clinical care. Interview guides focused on the value and barriers of PGHD use. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for emergent themes.

resultsThemes emerged around the value of PGHD to support care decisions and improve patient-provider communication and engagement, and the promise of applying PGHD to formal care pathways and measurement-based care. Significant barriers included data validity and actionability, and the burden of integrating PGHD into existing care processes. Interviews highlighted areas for future research to better understand how PGHD can advance care transformation.

conclusionsThese findings provide rich context for understanding the experiences and needs of the individuals who interface with PGHD. Translating advances in technology and data tracking into successful clinical implementation requires understanding how stakeholders conceptualize and make use of PGHD, the potential value that PGHD can add to care, and the challenges that may limit PGHD's promise. Our results illustrate the value and challenges associated with health-system implementation of PGHD. Efforts to increase the scale and spread of PGHD will benefit from an approach that addresses the value and challenges PGHD brings to clinical care.

Indexed as

data integrationdigital healthelectronic health dataPatient-generated health data (PGHD)

Identifiers

PMID32190619
PMCPMC7063266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.