ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Charting a course for smartphones and wearables to transform population health research.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The use of consumer-grade physical activity monitors: Insight into psychosocial determinants and technology acceptance.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of data from smartphones and wearable devices has huge potential for population health research given high device ownership, the range of novel health-relevant data types available from consumer devices, and the frequency and duration over which data are, or could be, collected. Yet the uptake and success of large-scale mobile health research in the last decade has not matched the hyped opportunity. We make the argument that digital person-generated health data is required and necessary to answer many top priority research questions through illustrative examples taken from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. We then summarise the findings from two UK initiatives that considered the challenges and possible solutions for what needs to be done, and in what way, to realise the future opportunities of digital person-generated health data for clinically important population health research. Examples of important areas to be addressed to advance the field include digital inequality and addressing possible selection bias, easy access for researchers to the appropriate data collection tools including how best to harmonise data items, analysis methodology for time series data, methods for patient and public involvement and engagement to optimise recruitment, retention and public trust, and providing greater control of their data to research participants. There is also a major opportunity through the linkage of digital persongenerated health data to routinely-collected data to support novel population health research, bringing together clinician-reported and patient-reported measures. We recognise that well conducted studies need a wide range of diverse challenges to be skilfully addressed in unison: for example, epidemiology, data science and biostatistics, psychometrics, behavioural and social science, software engineering, user interface design, information governance, data management and patient and public involvement and engagement. Consequently, progress would be accelerated by the establishment of a new interdisciplinary community where all relevant and necessary skills are brought together to allow excellence throughout the lifecycle of a research study. This will require a partnership of diverse people, of methods and of technology. Get this right and the synergy has the potential to transform many millions of people's lives for the better.
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.