Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180896›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Sharing patient-generated data with healthcare providers: findings from a 2019 national survey.

Kea Turner, Ara Jo, Grace Wei, Amir Alishahi Tabriz, Alecia Clary, Heather S L Jim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Performance of a commercial smart watch compared to polysomnography reference for overnight continuous oximetry measurement and sleep apnea evaluation.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kea TurnerDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Ara JoDepartment of Health Services Research, Management, and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Grace WeiUniversity of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Amir Alishahi TabrizDivision of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Alecia ClaryCenter for Healthcare Transformation, Avalere Health, Washington DC, USA.
Heather S L JimDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOur study estimates the prevalence and predictors of wearable device adoption and data sharing with healthcare providers in a nationally representative sample. MATERIALS AND

methodsData were obtained from the 2019 Health Information National Trend Survey. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to examine predictors of device adoption and data sharing.

resultsThe sample contained 4159 individuals, 29.9% of whom had adopted a wearable device in 2019. Among adopters, 46.3% had shared data with their provider. Individuals with diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 2.39; 95% CI, 1.66-3.45; P < .0001), hypertension (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.12-3.70; P < .0001), and multiple chronic conditions (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.03-2.32; P < .0001) had significantly higher odds of wearable device adoption. Individuals with a usual source of care (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.95-3.04; P < .0001), diabetes (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.32-2.08; P < .0001), and hypertension (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.44-2.20; P < .0001) had significantly higher odds of sharing data with providers. DISCUSSION: A third of individuals adopted a wearable medical device and nearly 50% of individuals who owned a device shared data with a provider in 2019. Patients with certain conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, were more likely to adopt devices and share data with providers. Social determinants of health, such as income and usual source of care, negatively affected wearable device adoption and data sharing, similarly to other consumer health technologies.

conclusionsWearable device adoption and data sharing with providers may be more common than prior studies have reported; however, digital disparities were noted. Studies are needed that test implementation strategies to expand wearable device use and data sharing into care delivery.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelInformation DisseminationPatient Generated Health DataWearable Electronic DevicesAge FactorsFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate Analysispatient-generated datapatient-generated health datawearable devicewearable technology

Identifiers

PMID33180896
PMCPMC7883987

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.