A Clinician and Electronic Health Record Wearable Device Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Patients With Obesity: Formative Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The number of individuals using digital health devices has grown in recent years. A higher rate of use in patients suggests that primary care providers (PCPs) may be able to leverage these tools to effectively guide and monitor physical activity (PA) for their patients. Despite evidence that remote patient monitoring (RPM) may enhance obesity interventions, few primary care practices have implemented programs that use commercial digital health tools to promote health or reduce complications of the disease. OBJECTIVE: This formative study aimed to assess the perceptions, needs, and challenges of implementation of an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated RPM program using wearable devices to promote patient PA at a large urban primary care practice to prepare for future intervention. METHODS: Our team identified existing workflows to upload wearable data to the EHR (Epic Systems), which included direct Fitbit (Google) integration that allowed for patient PA data to be uploaded to the EHR. We identified pictorial job aids describing the clinical workflow to PCPs. We then performed semistructured interviews with PCPs (n=10) and patients with obesity (n=8) at a large urban primary care clinic regarding their preferences and barriers to the program. We presented previously developed pictorial aids with instructions for (1) providers to complete an order set, set step-count goals, and receive feedback and (2) patients to set up their wearable devices and connect them to their patient portal account. We used rapid qualitative analysis during and after the interviews to code and develop key themes for both patients and providers that addressed our research objective. RESULTS: In total, 3 themes were identified from provider interviews: (1) providers' knowledge of PA prescription is focused on general guidelines with limited knowledge on how to tailor guidance to patients, (2) providers were open to receiving PA data but were worried about being overburdened by additional patient data, and (3) providers were concerned about patients being able to equitably access and participate in digital health interventions. In addition, 3 themes were also identified from patient interviews: (1) patients received limited or nonspecific guidance regarding PA from providers and other resources, (2) patients want to share exercise metrics with the health care team and receive tailored PA guidance at regular intervals, and (3) patients need written resources to support setting up an RPM program with access to live assistance on an as-needed basis. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an EHR-based RPM program and associated workflow is acceptable to PCPs and patients but will require attention to provider concerns of added burdensome patient data and patient concerns of receiving tailored PA guidance. Our ongoing work will pilot the RPM program and evaluate feasibility and acceptability within a primary care setting.
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 | 0,037 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».