Person-Generated Health Data in Women’s Health: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increased pervasiveness of digital health technology is producing large amounts of person-generated health data (PGHD). These data can empower people to monitor their health to promote prevention and management of disease. Women make up one of the largest groups of consumers of digital self-tracking technology. OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we aimed to (1) identify the different areas of women's health monitored using PGHD from connected health devices, (2) explore personal metrics collected through these technologies, and (3) synthesize facilitators of and barriers to women's adoption and use of connected health devices. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for scoping reviews, we searched 5 databases for articles published between January 1, 2015, and February 29, 2020. Papers were included if they targeted women or female individuals and incorporated digital health tools that collected PGHD outside a clinical setting. RESULTS: We included a total of 406 papers in this review. Articles on the use of PGHD for women steadily increased from 2015 to 2020. The health areas that the articles focused on spanned several topics, with pregnancy and the postpartum period being the most prevalent followed by cancer. Types of digital health used to collect PGHD included mobile apps, wearables, websites, the Internet of Things or smart devices, 2-way messaging, interactive voice response, and implantable devices. A thematic analysis of 41.4% (168/406) of the papers revealed 6 themes regarding facilitators of and barriers to women's use of digital health technology for collecting PGHD: (1) accessibility and connectivity, (2) design and functionality, (3) accuracy and credibility, (4) audience and adoption, (5) impact on community and health service, and (6) impact on health and behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, the adoption of digital health tools to address women's health concerns was on a steady rise. The prominence of tools related to pregnancy and the postpartum period reflects the strong focus on reproductive health in women's health research and highlights opportunities for digital technology development in other women's health topics. Digital health technology was most acceptable when it was relevant to the target audience, was seen as user-friendly, and considered women's personalization preferences while also ensuring accuracy of measurements and credibility of information. The integration of digital technologies into clinical care will continue to evolve, and factors such as liability and health care provider workload need to be considered. While acknowledging the diversity of individual needs, the use of PGHD can positively impact the self-care management of numerous women's health journeys. The COVID-19 pandemic has ushered in increased adoption and acceptance of digital health technology. This study could serve as a baseline comparison for how this field has evolved as a result. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/26110.
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 | 0.041 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".