ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Physicians' Perceptions and Demand Regarding Clinical and Secondary Use of Patient-Generated Health Data: Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-generated health data (PGHD) are increasingly recognized as valuable for clinical care and secondary use; however, physicians' perspectives remain heterogeneous and context-dependent.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine physicians' perceptions, intentions, and concerns about the clinical and nonclinical use of PGHD and to compare responses between tertiary hospitals and other institutions.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted involving 157 physicians (81 from a tertiary hospital and 76 from other health care institutions), supplemented by in-depth interviews. Between-group differences were assessed using chi-square tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Priority-ranking items were analyzed using weighted scores.
resultsOverall, 64% (100/157) of the physicians reported prior use of PGHD, most commonly in handwritten or printed form, with no significant institutional differences; physiological measurements were the most frequent type of data. Among nonusers, 78.9% (45/57) reported that they had never received PGHD from patients, while poor system integration was identified as a major barrier to clinical use. Physicians cited clinical necessity and user-friendly integration as the strongest motivators. Perceived benefits focused on enriched decision-making, whereas key concerns included data accuracy, increased workload, and insufficient evidence. For nonclinical use, research and public health were viewed as most valuable. Across institutions, secure and transparent governance was prioritized. Differences between tertiary and nontertiary settings appeared to reflect physician demographics rather than divergent attitudes. Interviews further revealed that PGHD use was highly context dependent, with older adults' limited digital literacy and discrepancies between patient- and caregiver-reported data identified as distinctive barriers in routine practice.
conclusionsPhysicians recognize the potential of PGHD to support outpatient care, shared decision-making, and research, but express strong concerns about data reliability, workflow burden, and insufficient infrastructure. Differences between tertiary and nontertiary physicians reflect demographic and career stage imbalances, but both groups converge on the need for standardization, secure integration, and supportive governance frameworks. Broad adoption will require not only technical integration but also regulatory reform and trust-building strategies to advance biomedical research and health care delivery.
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.