Patient-Generated Collections for Organizing Electronic Health Record Data to Elevate Personal Meaning, Improve Actionability, and Support Patient–Health Care Provider Communication: Think-Aloud Evaluation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Through third party applications, patients in the United States have access to their electronic health record (EHR) data from multiple health care providers. However, these applications offer only a predefined organization of these records by type, time stamp, or provider, leaving out meaningful connections between them. This prevents patients from efficiently reviewing, exploring, and making sense of their EHR data based on current or ongoing health issues. The lack of personalized organization and important connections can limit patients' ability to use their data and make informed health decisions. OBJECTIVE: To address these challenges, we created Discovery, an experimental app that enables patients to organize their medical records into collections, analogous to placing pictures in photo albums. These collections are based on the evolving understanding of the patients' past and ongoing health issues. The app also allows patients to add text notes to collections and their constituent records. By observing how patients used features to select records and assemble them into collections, our goal was to learn about their preferred mechanisms to complete these tasks and the challenges they would face in the wild. We also intended to become more informed about the various ways in which patients could and would like to use collections. METHODS: We conducted a think-aloud evaluation study with 14 participants on synthetic data. In session 1, we obtained feedback on the mechanics for creating and assembling collections and adding notes. In session 2, we focused on reviewing collections, finding data patterns within them, and retaining insights, as well as exploring use cases. We conducted reflexive thematic analysis on the transcribed feedback. RESULTS: Collections were useful for personal use (quick access to information, reflection on medical history, tracking health, journaling, and learning from past experiences) and clinical visits (preparation and raising physicians' awareness). Assembling EHR data into reliable collections could be difficult for typical patients due to considerable manual work and lack of medical knowledge. However, automated collection building could alleviate this issue. Furthermore, having EHR data organized in collections may have limited use. However, augmenting them with patient-generated data, which are entered with flexible richness and structure, could add context, elevate meaning, and improve actionability. Finally, collections might produce a misconstrued health picture, but bringing the physician in the loop for verification could increase their clinical validity. CONCLUSIONS: Collections can be a powerful tool for advancing patients' proactivity, awareness, and self-advocacy, potentially facilitating patient-centered care. However, patients need better support for incorporating their own everyday data and adding meaningful annotations for future reference. Improvements in the comprehensiveness, efficiency, and reliability of the collection assembly process through automation are also necessary.
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 | 0,011 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».