A Clinician and Electronic Health Record Wearable Device Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Patients With Obesity: Formative Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.037 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".