Recommendations for the Quality Management of Patient-Generated Health Data in Remote Patient Monitoring: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-generated health data (PGHD) collected from innovative wearables are enabling health care to shift to outside clinical settings through remote patient monitoring (RPM) initiatives. However, PGHD are collected continuously under the patient's responsibility in rapidly changing circumstances during the patient's daily life. This poses risks to the quality of PGHD and, in turn, reduces their trustworthiness and fitness for use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: Using a sociotechnical health informatics lens, we developed a data quality management (DQM) guideline for PGHD captured from wearable devices used in RPM with the objective of investigating how DQM principles can be applied to ensure that PGHD can reliably inform clinical decision-making in RPM. METHODS: First, clinicians, health information specialists, and MedTech industry representatives with experience in RPM were interviewed to identify DQM challenges. Second, these stakeholder groups were joined by patient representatives in a workshop to co-design potential solutions to meet the expectations of all the stakeholders. Third, the findings, along with the literature and policy review results, were interpreted to construct a guideline. Finally, we validated the guideline through a Delphi survey of international health informatics and health information management experts. RESULTS: The guideline constructed in this study comprised 19 recommendations across 7 aspects of DQM. It explicitly addressed the needs of patients and clinicians but implied that there must be collaboration among all stakeholders to meet these needs. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing proliferation of PGHD from wearables in RPM requires a systematic approach to DQM so that these data can be reliably used in clinical care. The developed guideline is an important next step toward safe RPM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.521 | 0.430 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".