Dataset Information

Secondary care provider attitudes towards patient generated health data from smartwatches.

ABSTRACT: Wearable devices, like smartwatches, are increasingly used for tracking physical activity, community mobility, and monitoring symptoms. Data generated from smartwatches (PGHD_SW) is a form of patient-generated health data, which can benefit providers by supplying frequent temporal information about patients. The goal of this study was to understand providers' perceptions towards PGHD_SW adoption and its integration with electronic medical records. In-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 providers from internal medicine, family medicine, geriatric medicine, nursing, surgery, rehabilitation, and anesthesiology. Diffusion of Innovations was used as a framework to develop questions and guide data analysis. The constant comparative method was utilized to formulate salient themes from the interviews. Four main themes emerged: (1) PGHD_SW is perceived as a relative advantage; (2) data are viewed as compatible with current practices; (3) barriers to overcome to effectively use PGHD_SW; (4) assessments from viewing sample data. Overall, PGHD_SW was valued because it enabled access to information about patients that were traditionally unattainable. It also can initiate discussions between patients and providers. Providers consider PGHD_SW important, but data preferences varied by specialty. The successful adoption of PGHD_SW will depend on tailoring data, frequencies of reports, and visualization preferences to correspond with the demands of providers.

SUBMITTER: Alpert JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7054258 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Secondary care provider attitudes towards patient generated health data from smartwatches.

Alpert Jordan M JM Manini Todd T Roberts Megan M Kota Naga S Prabhakar NSP Mendoza Tonatiuh V TV Solberg Laurence M LM Rashidi Parisa P

NPJ digital medicine 20200303

Wearable devices, like smartwatches, are increasingly used for tracking physical activity, community mobility, and monitoring symptoms. Data generated from smartwatches (PGHD_SW) is a form of patient-generated health data, which can benefit providers by supplying frequent temporal information about patients. The goal of this study was to understand providers' perceptions towards PGHD_SW adoption and its integration with electronic medical records. In-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews ...[more]

PMID: 32140569

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted once more the great need for comprehensive access to, and uncomplicated use of, pre-existing patient data for medical research. Enabling secondary research-use of patient-data is a prerequisite for the efficient and sustainable promotion of translation and personalisation in medicine, and for the advancement of public-health. However, balancing the legitimate interests of scientists in broad and unrestricted data-access and the demand for individual autonomy, privacy and social justice is a great challenge for patient-based medical research.MethodsWe therefore conducted two questionnaire-based surveys among North-German outpatients (n = 650) to determine their attitude towards data-donation for medical research, implemented as an opt-out-process.ResultsWe observed a high level of acceptance (75.0%), the most powerful predictor of a positive attitude towards data-donation was the conviction that every citizen has a duty to contribute to the improvement of medical research (> 80% of participants approving data-donation). Interestingly, patients distinguished sharply between research inside and outside the EU, despite a general awareness that universities and public research institutions cooperate with commercial companies, willingness to allow use of donated data by the latter was very low (7.1% to 29.1%, depending upon location of company). The most popular measures among interviewees to counteract reservations against commercial data-use were regulation by law (61.4%), stipulating in the process that data are not sold or resold (84.6%). A majority requested control of both the use (46.8%) and the protection (41.5%) of the data by independent bodies.ConclusionsIn conclusion, data-donation for medical research, implemented as a combination of legal entitlement and easy-to-exercise-right to opt-out, was found to be widely supported by German patients and therefore warrants further consideration for a transposition into national law.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used to monitor patients during treatment. Healthcare provider preferences for individualized vs. standardized PROs have been understudied.MethodsThis study surveyed oncology and mental health providers to compare attitudes towards individualized and standardized PROs. We have developed a method for individualizing PROs, called precision PROs, and the survey specifically assessed preferences for this method. We compared attitudes and preferences by provider type and by whether respondents were current or never users of PROs.ResultsOncology providers expressed more positive attitudes for standardized PROs in treatment planning compared to mental health providers (F(1,440) = 5.978, p = 0.015). The interaction between provider type (oncology vs. mental health) and type of PRO (individualized vs. standardized) was not significant for the attitudes about the clinical utility of PROs (p = 0.709). When directly asked about the precision PRO approach, oncologists were less likely to prefer standardized items (OR = 0.478, p = 0.001) or have no preference (OR = 0.445, p = 0.007) to the precision PRO approach when compared to mental health providers. Qualitative analyses suggested standardized PROs may be simpler or easier to understand whereas individualized PROs better capture patient variability and the unique aspects of each patient's condition. Some mental health providers expressed reticence about letting patients choose how to tailor PROs. Never users of PROs reported more positive attitudes towards individualized measures than standardized measures whereas current users of PROs did not have a difference in attitudes (p = 0.010). User status was mostly unrelated to preferences.ConclusionResults suggest that healthcare provider preference for individualized PROs may differ by medical specialty. How PROs are tailored may need to differ by discipline. This is particularly important given that previous research showing a preference for individualized PROs over standardized was conducted with psychotherapists. Further research on patient preferences for individualized and standardized PROs is warranted as is research on the clinical utility of individualized PROs such as the precision PRO approach.

Project description:CONTEXT:In the United States, state laws require health care providers to report specific diseases and events to public health authorities, a fundamental facet of disease surveillance. However, reporting by providers is often inconsistent, infrequent, and delayed. OBJECTIVE:To examine knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding provider disease reporting and to understand current barriers to provider disease reporting. DESIGN:A cross-sectional study was conducted via an anonymous, standardized electronic survey. SETTING:The survey was conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a large, tertiary academic medical center in Nashville, Tennessee. PARTICIPANTS:Health care providers in 4 specialties (internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, and emergency medicine). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S):Knowledge of and attitudes regarding provider reporting of diseases to public health authorities in Tennessee. RESULTS:The majority of providers acknowledged they cared for patients with reportable diseases (362/435, 83.2%) and believed that it was their responsibility to report to public health authorities (429/436, 98.4%); however, less than half had ever reported a case (206/436, 47.2%). The median percent correct on the knowledge assessment of Tennessee reportable diseases and conditions was 81.3% (interquartile range = 68.8-87.5). Providers cited a lack of knowledge of which diseases are reportable (186/429, 43.3%) and the logistics of reporting (153/429, 35.7%) as the primary barriers for compliance. CONCLUSION:Most providers acknowledged they cared for patients with reportable diseases and believed they had an obligation to report to public health authorities. However, a lack of knowledge about reporting was frequently described as a limitation to report effectively. Many knowledge deficits were significantly greater among residents than other providers.The policy and practice implications of these findings include a demonstrated need for education of providers about disease reporting as well as development of more convenient reporting mechanisms. Fundamental knowledge of reportable disease requirements and procedures is critical for participation in the broader public health system.

Dataset Information

Secondary care provider attitudes towards patient generated health data from smartwatches.

Publications

Secondary care provider attitudes towards patient generated health data from smartwatches.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure