The Use of Patient-Generated Health Data From Consumer-Grade Mobile Devices in Clinical Workflows: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the rapid advancement of mobile technology, the scope of mobile health (mHealth) has expanded to include consumer-grade devices such as smartphones and wearable sensors. These solutions have typically been used for fitness purposes; however, due to their ubiquitous capabilities for data collection, they have the potential to bridge information gaps and supplement data from clinical visits. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) can be derived from mHealth solutions and be used by health care professionals (HCPs) as complementary tools in the care process, yet their integration into clinical workflows presents a myriad of challenges. PGHD might be a new and unfamiliar source of information for most HCPs, and the majority of mHealth solutions have not been designed to be used by HCPs as active reviewers. As mHealth solutions become more available and attractive to patients, HCPs may see an increase in the influx of data and related inquiries from their patients. This mismatch in expectations can result in disruptions to clinical workflows and negatively impact patient-clinician relationships. For PGHD to be integrated into clinical workflows, its use should be proven beneficial for both patients and HCPs. However, so far, only limited research has been done on the concrete experiences of HCPs as active reviewers of PGHD from consumer-grade mobile devices. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically guide the review of existing literature to identify what types of PGHD from consumer-grade mobile devices are currently being used by HCPs as complementary tools in the care process. METHODS: The PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 was followed for the design of the search, selection, and data synthesis processes. Electronic searches will be done on PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus. RESULTS: Preliminary searches have been conducted, and previous related systematic and scoping reviews have been found and evaluated. The review is expected to be completed in February 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol will guide the review of existing literature on the use of PGHD produced by consumer-grade mobile devices. Although there have been previous reviews related to this topic, our proposed approach seeks to understand the specific opinions and experiences of different types of HCPs who are already using PGHD in their clinical practice and the motives for deeming these data useful and worth reviewing. Depending on the studies that will be included, there may be an opportunity to provide a wider understanding of what types of HCPs trust PGHD, despite the possible challenges that its use might convey, potentially contributing with the knowledge to support the design strategies of mHealth tools that could be integrated into clinical workflows. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/39389.
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 | 0.048 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.005 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".