Meghan Reading Turchioe1, Annie Myers1, Samuel Isaac1, Dawon Baik2, Lisa V Grossman3, Jessica S Ancker1, Ruth Masterson Creber1. 1. Division of Health Informatics, Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, United States. 2. Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States. 3. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As personal health data are being returned to patients with increasing frequency and volume, visualizations are garnering excitement for their potential to facilitate patient interpretation. Evaluating these visualizations is important to ensure that patients are able to understand and, when appropriate, act upon health data in a safe and effective manner. The objective of this systematic review was to review and evaluate the state of the science of patient-facing visualizations of personal health data. METHODS: We searched five scholarly databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library [Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library], and IEEE Computational Index [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computational Index]) through December 1, 2018 for relevant articles. We included English-language articles that developed or tested one or more patient-facing visualizations for personal health data. Three reviewers independently assessed quality of included articles using the Mixed methods Appraisal Tool. Characteristics of included articles and visualizations were extracted and synthesized. RESULTS: In 39 articles included in the review, there was heterogeneity in the sample sizes and methods for evaluation but not sample demographics. Few articles measured health literacy, numeracy, or graph literacy. Line graphs were the most common visualization, especially for longitudinal data, but number lines were used more frequently in included articles over past 5 years. Article findings suggested more patients understand the number lines and bar graphs compared with line graphs, and that color is effective at communicating risk, improving comprehension, and increasing confidence in interpretation. CONCLUSION: In this review, we summarize types and components of patient-facing visualizations and methodologies for development and evaluation in the reviewed articles. We also identify recommendations for future work relating to collecting and reporting data, examining clinically actionable boundaries for diverse data types, and leveraging data science. This work will be critically important as patient access of their personal health data through portals and mobile devices continues to rise. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
OBJECTIVES: As personal health data are being returned to patients with increasing frequency and volume, visualizations are garnering excitement for their potential to facilitate patient interpretation. Evaluating these visualizations is important to ensure that patients are able to understand and, when appropriate, act upon health data in a safe and effective manner. The objective of this systematic review was to review and evaluate the state of the science of patient-facing visualizations of personal health data. METHODS: We searched five scholarly databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library [Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library], and IEEE Computational Index [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computational Index]) through December 1, 2018 for relevant articles. We included English-language articles that developed or tested one or more patient-facing visualizations for personal health data. Three reviewers independently assessed quality of included articles using the Mixed methods Appraisal Tool. Characteristics of included articles and visualizations were extracted and synthesized. RESULTS: In 39 articles included in the review, there was heterogeneity in the sample sizes and methods for evaluation but not sample demographics. Few articles measured health literacy, numeracy, or graph literacy. Line graphs were the most common visualization, especially for longitudinal data, but number lines were used more frequently in included articles over past 5 years. Article findings suggested more patients understand the number lines and bar graphs compared with line graphs, and that color is effective at communicating risk, improving comprehension, and increasing confidence in interpretation. CONCLUSION: In this review, we summarize types and components of patient-facing visualizations and methodologies for development and evaluation in the reviewed articles. We also identify recommendations for future work relating to collecting and reporting data, examining clinically actionable boundaries for diverse data types, and leveraging data science. This work will be critically important as patient access of their personal health data through portals and mobile devices continues to rise. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Danny T Y Wu; Annie T Chen; John D Manning; Gal Levy-Fix; Uba Backonja; David Borland; Jesus J Caban; Dawn W Dowding; Harry Hochheiser; Vadim Kagan; Swaminathan Kandaswamy; Manish Kumar; Alexis Nunez; Eric Pan; David Gotz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Andrew Farmer; Oliver Gibson; Paul Hayton; Kathryn Bryden; Christina Dudley; Andrew Neil; Lionel Tarassenko Journal: Inform Prim Care Date: 2005
Authors: Lena Mamykina; Elizabeth M Heitkemper; Arlene M Smaldone; Rita Kukafka; Heather Cole-Lewis; Patricia G Davidson; Elizabeth D Mynatt; Jonathan N Tobin; Andrea Cassells; Carrie Goodman; George Hripcsak Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lauren E Snyder; Daniel F Phan; Kristen C Williams; Eduardo Piqueiras; Sarah E Connor; Sheba George; Lorna Kwan; Jefersson Villatoro Chavez; Megha D Tandel; Stanley K Frencher; Mark S Litwin; John L Gore; Andrea L Hartzler Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Jacqueline Vaughn; Donruedee Kamkhoad; Ryan J Shaw; Sharron L Docherty; Arvind P Subramaniam; Nirmish Shah Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: William Martinez; Amber J Hackstadt; Gerald B Hickson; Thomas Knoerl; S Trent Rosenbloom; Kenneth A Wallston; Tom A Elasy Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.762