ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
"Less words, more pictures": creating and sharing data visualizations from a remote health monitoring system with clinicians to improve cancer pain management.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The Behavioral and Environmental Sensing and Intervention for Cancer (BESI-C) is a remote health monitoring system (RHMS) developed by our interdisciplinary team that collects holistic physiological, behavioral, psychosocial, and contextual data related to pain from dyads of patients with cancer and their family caregivers via environmental and wearable (smartwatch) sensors. Methods: R, Python, and Canva software were used to create a series of static and interactive data visualizations (e.g., visual representations of data in the form of graphs, figures, or pictures) from de-identified BESI-C data to share with palliative care clinicians during virtual and in-person 1-hour feedback sessions. Participants were shown a sequence of 5-6 different data visualizations related to patient and caregiver self-reported pain events, environmental factors, and quality of life indicators, completed an electronic survey that assessed clarity, usefulness, and comprehension, and then engaged in a structured discussion. Quantitative survey results were descriptively analyzed and "think aloud" qualitative comments thematically summarized and used to iterate data visualizations between feedback sessions. Results: Six to 12 interdisciplinary palliative care clinicians from an academic medical center, a local hospice, and a community hospital within Central Virginia participated in five data visualization feedback sessions. Both survey results and group discussion feedback revealed a preference for more familiar, simpler data visualizations that focused on the physical aspects of pain assessment, such as number of high intensity pain events and response to pharmacological interventions. Preferences for degree of data granularity and content varied by discipline and care delivery model, and there was mixed interest in seeing caregiver reported data. Overall, non-physician participants expressed greater interest in visualizations that included environmental variables impacting pain and non-pharmacological interventions. Conclusion: Clinicians desired higher-level (i.e., less granular/detailed) views of complex sensing data with a "take home" message that can be quickly processed. Orienting clinicians to unfamiliar, contextual data sources from remote health monitoring systems (such as environmental data and quality of life data from caregivers) and integrating these data into clinical workflows is critical to ensure these types of data can optimally inform the patient's plan of care. Future work should focus on customizing data visualization formats and viewing options, as well as explore ethical issues related to sharing data visualizations with key stakeholders.
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.