Literature DB >> 31657854

Using Smartphones to Capture Novel Recovery Metrics After Cancer Surgery.

Nikhil Panda1,2, Ian Solsky1,3, Emily J Huang4, Stuart Lipsitz1, Jason C Pradarelli1,5, Megan Delisle1, James C Cusack2, Michele A Gadd2, Carrie C Lubitz2, John T Mullen2, Motaz Qadan2, Barbara L Smith2, Michelle Specht2, Antonia E Stephen2, Kenneth K Tanabe2, Atul A Gawande1,5, Jukka-Pekka Onnela1,4, Alex B Haynes1,2.   

Abstract

Importance: Patient-generated health data captured from smartphone sensors have the potential to better quantify the physical outcomes of surgery. The ability of these data to discriminate between postoperative trends in physical activity remains unknown. Objective: To assess whether physical activity captured from smartphone accelerometer data can be used to describe postoperative recovery among patients undergoing cancer operations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted from July 2017 to April 2019 in a single academic tertiary care hospital in the United States. Preoperatively, adults (age ≥18 years) who spoke English and were undergoing elective operations for skin, soft tissue, head, neck, and abdominal cancers were approached. Patients were excluded if they did not own a smartphone. Exposures: Study participants downloaded an application that collected smartphone accelerometer data continuously for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were trends in daily exertional activity and the ability to achieve at least 60 minutes of daily exertional activity after surgery among patients with vs without a clinically significant postoperative event. Postoperative events were defined as complications, emergency department presentations, readmissions, reoperations, and mortality.
Results: A total of 139 individuals were approached. In the 62 enrolled patients, who were followed up for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 147 (77-179) days, there were no preprocedural differences between patients with vs without a postoperative event. Seventeen patients (27%) experienced a postoperative event. These patients had longer operations than those without a postoperative event (median [IQR], 225 [152-402] minutes vs 107 [68-174] minutes; P < .001), as well as greater blood loss (median [IQR], 200 [35-515] mL vs 25 [5-100] mL; P = .006) and more follow-up visits (median [IQR], 2 [2-4] visits vs 1 [1-2] visits; P = .002). Compared with mean baseline daily exertional activity, patients with a postoperative event had lower activity at week 1 (difference, -41.6 [95% CI, -75.1 to -8.0] minutes; P = .02), week 3 (difference, -40.0 [95% CI, -72.3 to -3.6] minutes; P = .03), week 5 (difference, -39.6 [95% CI, -69.1 to -10.1] minutes; P = .01), and week 6 (difference, -36.2 [95% CI, -64.5 to -7.8] minutes; P = .01) postoperatively. Fewer of these patients were able to achieve 60 minutes of daily exertional activity in the 6 weeks postoperatively (proportions: week 1, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.31-0.49]; P < .001; week 2, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.40-0.58]; P = .003; week 3, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.30-0.48]; P < .001; week 4, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38-0.57]; P < .001; week 5, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.42-0.60]; P < .001; week 6, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.68-0.79] vs 0.43 [95% CI, 0.33-0.52]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Smartphone accelerometer data can describe differences in postoperative physical activity among patients with vs without a postoperative event. These data help objectively quantify patient-centered surgical recovery, which have the potential to improve and promote shared decision-making, recovery monitoring, and patient engagement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31657854      PMCID: PMC6820047          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.4702

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  20 in total

1.  The Rise of Wearable Technology in Health Care.

Authors:  Thomas M Krummel
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-02-01

2.  Redefining shared decision-making in the digital era.

Authors:  Nikhil Panda; Ian Solsky; Alex B Haynes
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-07-20       Impact factor: 4.424

3.  Fitbit step counts during inpatient recovery from cancer surgery as a predictor of readmission.

Authors:  Carissa A Low; Dana H Bovbjerg; Steven Ahrendt; M Haroon Choudry; Matthew Holtzman; Heather L Jones; James F Pingpank; Lekshmi Ramalingam; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat; David L Bartlett
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-05

4.  'Am I really ready to go home?': a qualitative study of patients' experience of early discharge following an enhanced recovery programme for liver resection surgery.

Authors:  T Vandrevala; V Senior; L Spring; L Kelliher; C Jones
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-03-19       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Inferring mobility measures from GPS traces with missing data.

Authors:  Ian Barnett; Jukka-Pekka Onnela
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 6.  How many steps/day are enough? For older adults and special populations.

Authors:  Catrine Tudor-Locke; Cora L Craig; Yukitoshi Aoyagi; Rhonda C Bell; Karen A Croteau; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Ben Ewald; Andrew W Gardner; Yoshiro Hatano; Lesley D Lutes; Sandra M Matsudo; Farah A Ramirez-Marrero; Laura Q Rogers; David A Rowe; Michael D Schmidt; Mark A Tully; Steven N Blair
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 6.457

7.  A Large-Scale Initiative Inviting Patients to Share Personal Fitness Tracker Data with Their Providers: Initial Results.

Authors:  Joshua M Pevnick; Garth Fuller; Ray Duncan; Brennan M R Spiegel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Assessing the Influence of a Fitbit Physical Activity Monitor on the Exercise Practices of Emergency Medicine Residents: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Justin David Schrager; Philip Shayne; Sarah Wolf; Shamie Das; Rachel Elizabeth Patzer; Melissa White; Sheryl Heron
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 4.773

9.  Characterizing the clinical relevance of digital phenotyping data quality with applications to a cohort with schizophrenia.

Authors:  John Torous; Patrick Staples; Ian Barnett; Luis R Sandoval; Matcheri Keshavan; Jukka-Pekka Onnela
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2018-04-06

10.  Wearable activity monitors to assess performance status and predict clinical outcomes in advanced cancer patients.

Authors:  Steven Piantadosi; Arvind M Shinde; Gillian Gresham; Andrew E Hendifar; Brennan Spiegel; Elad Neeman; Richard Tuli; B J Rimel; Robert A Figlin; Curtis L Meinert
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2018-07-05
View more
  20 in total

1.  Performance Status in Cancer: Not Broken, But Time for an Upgrade?

Authors:  Jessica M Scott; Guro Stene; Elisabeth Edvardsen; Lee W Jones
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Smartphone GPS signatures of patients undergoing spine surgery correlate with mobility and current gold standard outcome measures.

Authors:  Alessandro Boaro; Jeffrey Leung; Harrison T Reeder; Francesca Siddi; Elisabetta Mezzalira; Gang Liu; Rania A Mekary; Yi Lu; Michael W Groff; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Timothy R Smith
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2021-08-27

3.  Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Nikhil Panda; Ian Solsky; Becky Hawrusik; Gang Liu; Harrison Reeder; Stuart Lipsitz; Eesha V Desai; Kurt W Lowery; Kate Miller; Michele A Gadd; Carrie C Lubitz; Barbara L Smith; Michelle Specht; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Alex B Haynes
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Online Anomaly Detection for Smartphone-Based Multivariate Behavioral Time Series Data.

Authors:  Gang Liu; Jukka-Pekka Onnela
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Augmented Movelet Method for Activity Classification Using Smartphone Gyroscope and Accelerometer Data.

Authors:  Emily J Huang; Jukka-Pekka Onnela
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 6.  The opportunities and challenges of machine learning in the acute care setting for precision prevention of posttraumatic stress sequelae.

Authors:  Katharina Schultebraucks; Bernard P Chang
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 5.330

Review 7.  Patient generated health data and electronic health record integration in oncologic surgery: A call for artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Authors:  Laleh G Melstrom; Andrei S Rodin; Lorenzo A Rossi; Paul Fu; Yuman Fong; Virginia Sun
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 3.454

8.  Expected Versus Experienced Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Recovering From Cancer Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Nikhil Panda; Ian Solsky; Brandon J Neal; Becky Hawrusik; Stuart Lipsitz; Carrie C Lubitz; Chris Gibbons; Mary Brindle; Robert D Sinyard; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Christy E Cauley; Alex B Haynes
Journal:  Ann Surg Open       Date:  2021-04-08

9.  Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis care and research in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Jinsy A Andrews; James D Berry; Robert H Baloh; Nathan Carberry; Merit E Cudkowicz; Brixhilda Dedi; Jonathan Glass; Nicholas J Maragakis; Timothy M Miller; Sabrina Paganoni; Jeffrey D Rothstein; Jeremy M Shefner; Zachary Simmons; Michael D Weiss; Richard S Bedlack
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 3.852

10.  Current clinical utilisation of wearable motion sensors for the assessment of outcome following knee arthroplasty: a scoping review.

Authors:  Scott R Small; Garrett S Bullock; Sara Khalid; Karen Barker; Marialena Trivella; Andrew James Price
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-12-29       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.