Wearable Health Technology and Electronic Health Record Integration: Scoping Review and Future Directions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Due to the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and legislation on meaningful use in recent decades, health systems are increasingly interdependent on EHR capabilities, offerings, and innovations to better capture patient data. A novel capability offered by health systems encompasses the integration between EHRs and wearable health technology. Although wearables have the potential to transform patient care, issues such as concerns with patient privacy, system interoperability, and patient data overload pose a challenge to the adoption of wearables by providers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review the landscape of wearable health technology and data integration to provider EHRs, specifically Epic, because of its prevalence among health systems. The objectives of the study were to (1) identify the current innovations and new directions in the field across start-ups, health systems, and insurance companies and (2) understand the associated challenges to inform future wearable health technology projects at other health organizations. METHODS: We used a scoping process to survey existing efforts through Epic's Web-based hub and discussion forum, UserWeb, and on the general Web, PubMed, and Google Scholar. We contacted Epic, because of their position as the largest commercial EHR system, for information on published client work in the integration of patient-collected data. Results from our searches had to meet criteria such as publication date and matching relevant search terms. RESULTS: Numerous health institutions have started to integrate device data into patient portals. We identified the following 10 start-up organizations that have developed, or are in the process of developing, technology to enhance wearable health technology and enable EHR integration for health systems: Overlap, Royal Philips, Vivify Health, Validic, Doximity Dialer, Xealth, Redox, Conversa, Human API, and Glooko. We reported sample start-up partnerships with a total of 16 health systems in addressing challenges of the meaningful use of device data and streamlining provider workflows. We also found 4 insurance companies that encourage the growth and uptake of wearables through health tracking and incentive programs: Oscar Health, United Healthcare, Humana, and John Hancock. CONCLUSIONS: The future design and development of digital technology in this space will rely on continued analysis of best practices, pain points, and potential solutions to mitigate existing challenges. Although this study does not provide a full comprehensive catalog of all wearable health technology initiatives, it is representative of trends and implications for the integration of patient data into the EHR. Our work serves as an initial foundation to provide resources on implementation and workflows around wearable health technology for organizations across the health care industry.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,039 | 0,125 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,030 | 0,035 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».