Exploring Clinician Experiences With a Digital Platform Supporting Orthopedic Care That Integrates Patient-Generated Health Data: Qualitative Study of Early Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Digital care platforms that integrate patient-generated health data (PGHD) alongside education and communication tools have been recognized as potential instruments in transforming health care from clinician-centered to a more patient-centered approach. This transformation is driven by the potential of PGHD to provide deeper insights into patients' conditions, facilitate personalized care, improve patient quality of life, reduce inefficiencies in data collection, and empower patients. Yet, actual implementation within clinical settings is still at early stages; therefore, impacts on clinical care remain limited. Objective: This study sought to explore the benefits, challenges, and opportunities of integrating PGHD into orthopedic care by analyzing the reflections of early adopter surgeons and physiotherapists who have used a digital care management platform. Methods: This qualitative study used thematic analysis of interviews conducted with surgeons and physiotherapists (n=9) from a clinical unit that was among the first to trial "mymobility," an industry-produced software platform (Zimmer Biomet). The participants were recruited using snowball sampling, and interviews were conducted from June to July 2022. The interviews focused on work practices, use of digital tools, experiences with PGHD, and experiences with the mymobility software. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo software (QSR International Pty Ltd), focusing on identifying key themes and insights. Results: The study identified several benefits of integrating PGHD into orthopedic care, including improved patient education, enhanced communication and assessment, and increased patient motivation and adherence. However, several challenges were also noted, such as increased clinician workload, questionable data utility, lack of patient centricity, and inability to tailor software to clinical contexts. Suggested opportunities included improving dashboard design, personalizing physiotherapy, and using collected data for improving clinical care. Conclusions: The integration of PGHD into orthopedic care shows promise, largely in areas suggested by the literature. However, significant challenges remain. Future research should focus on addressing solvable challenges, such as improving software user interface design and functionality, while embracing the possibility that some challenges lack clear solutions and will likely require careful balancing of design tensions. The findings highlight the need for ongoing development and refinement of PGHD-inclusive systems to better support clinical practice and patient outcomes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".