Christine Manta1,2, Bray Patrick-Lake1,3, Jennifer C Goldsack1. 1. Digital Medicine Society, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Elektra Labs, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Evidation Health, Inc., San Mateo, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the rise of connected sensor technologies, there are seemingly endless possibilities for new ways to measure health. These technologies offer researchers and clinicians opportunities to go beyond brief snapshots of data captured by traditional in-clinic assessments, to redefine health and disease. Given the myriad opportunities for measurement, how do research or clinical teams know what they should be measuring? Patient engagement, early and often, is paramount to thoughtfully selecting what is most important. Regulators encourage stakeholders to have a patient focus but actionable steps for continuous engagement are not well defined. Without patient-focused measurement, stakeholders risk entrenching digital versions of poor traditional assessments and proliferating low-value tools that are ineffective, burdensome, and reduce both quality and efficiency in clinical care and research. SUMMARY: This article synthesizes and defines a sequential framework of core principles for selecting and developing measurements in research and clinical care that are meaningful for patients. We propose next steps to drive forward the science of high-quality patient engagement in support of measures of health that matter in the era of digital medicine. KEY MESSAGES: All measures of health should be meaningful, regardless of the product's regulatory classification, type of measure, or context of use. To evaluate meaningfulness of signals derived from digital sensors, the following four-level framework is useful: Meaningful Aspect of Health, Concept of Interest, Outcome to be measured, and Endpoint (exclusive to research). Incorporating patient input is a dynamic process that requires more than a single, transactional touch point but rather should be conducted continuously throughout the measurement selection process. We recommend that developers, clinicians, and researchers reevaluate processes for more continuous patient engagement in the development, deployment, and interpretation of digital measures of health.
BACKGROUND: With the rise of connected sensor technologies, there are seemingly endless possibilities for new ways to measure health. These technologies offer researchers and clinicians opportunities to go beyond brief snapshots of data captured by traditional in-clinic assessments, to redefine health and disease. Given the myriad opportunities for measurement, how do research or clinical teams know what they should be measuring? Patient engagement, early and often, is paramount to thoughtfully selecting what is most important. Regulators encourage stakeholders to have a patient focus but actionable steps for continuous engagement are not well defined. Without patient-focused measurement, stakeholders risk entrenching digital versions of poor traditional assessments and proliferating low-value tools that are ineffective, burdensome, and reduce both quality and efficiency in clinical care and research. SUMMARY: This article synthesizes and defines a sequential framework of core principles for selecting and developing measurements in research and clinical care that are meaningful for patients. We propose next steps to drive forward the science of high-quality patient engagement in support of measures of health that matter in the era of digital medicine. KEY MESSAGES: All measures of health should be meaningful, regardless of the product's regulatory classification, type of measure, or context of use. To evaluate meaningfulness of signals derived from digital sensors, the following four-level framework is useful: Meaningful Aspect of Health, Concept of Interest, Outcome to be measured, and Endpoint (exclusive to research). Incorporating patient input is a dynamic process that requires more than a single, transactional touch point but rather should be conducted continuously throughout the measurement selection process. We recommend that developers, clinicians, and researchers reevaluate processes for more continuous patient engagement in the development, deployment, and interpretation of digital measures of health.
Authors: Andrea Coravos; Jennifer C Goldsack; Daniel R Karlin; Camille Nebeker; Eric Perakslis; Noah Zimmerman; M Kelley Erb Journal: Digit Biomark Date: 2019-05-09
Authors: Reynaldo Rodrigues; Rodrigo B Ferraz; Ceci O Kurimori; Lissiane K Guedes; Fernanda R Lima; Ana L de Sá-Pinto; Bruno Gualano; Hamilton Roschel Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Rosie Morris; Douglas N Martini; Katrijn Smulders; Valerie E Kelly; Cyrus P Zabetian; Kathleen Poston; Amie Hiller; Kathryn A Chung; Laurice Yang; Shu-Ching Hu; Karen L Edwards; Brenna Cholerton; Thomas J Grabowski; Thomas J Montine; Joseph F Quinn; Fay Horak Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Kelly L Andrzejewski; Ariel V Dowling; David Stamler; Timothy J Felong; Denzil A Harris; Cynthia Wong; Hang Cai; Ralf Reilmann; Max A Little; Joseph T Gwin; Kevin M Biglan; E Ray Dorsey Journal: J Huntingtons Dis Date: 2016-06-18
Authors: Marc K Walton; John H Powers; Jeremy Hobart; Donald Patrick; Patrick Marquis; Spiros Vamvakas; Maria Isaac; Elizabeth Molsen; Stefan Cano; Laurie B Burke Journal: Value Health Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Alaina P Boyer; Alecia M Fair; Yvonne A Joosten; Rowena J Dolor; Neely A Williams; Lisa Sherden; Sarah Stallings; Duane T Smoot; Consuelo H Wilkins Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Brian Perry; Will Herrington; Jennifer C Goldsack; Cheryl A Grandinetti; Kaveeta P Vasisht; Martin J Landray; Lauren Bataille; Robert A DiCicco; Corey Bradley; Ashish Narayan; Elektra J Papadopoulos; Nirav Sheth; Ken Skodacek; Komathi Stem; Theresa V Strong; Marc K Walton; Amy Corneli Journal: Digit Biomark Date: 2018-01-31
Authors: Jennifer C Goldsack; Andrea Coravos; Jessie P Bakker; Brinnae Bent; Ariel V Dowling; Cheryl Fitzer-Attas; Alan Godfrey; Job G Godino; Ninad Gujar; Elena Izmailova; Christine Manta; Barry Peterson; Benjamin Vandendriessche; William A Wood; Ke Will Wang; Jessilyn Dunn Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2020-04-14
Authors: Andrea Coravos; Megan Doerr; Jennifer Goldsack; Christine Manta; Mark Shervey; Beau Woods; William A Wood Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2020-03-13
Authors: Florian Lipsmeier; Cedric Simillion; Atieh Bamdadian; Rosanna Tortelli; Lauren M Byrne; Yan-Ping Zhang; Detlef Wolf; Anne V Smith; Christian Czech; Christian Gossens; Patrick Weydt; Scott A Schobel; Filipe B Rodrigues; Edward J Wild; Michael Lindemann Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Diane Stephenson; Robert Alexander; Varun Aggarwal; Reham Badawy; Lisa Bain; Roopal Bhatnagar; Bastiaan R Bloem; Babak Boroojerdi; Jackson Burton; Jesse M Cedarbaum; Josh Cosman; David T Dexter; Marissa Dockendorf; E Ray Dorsey; Ariel V Dowling; Luc J W Evers; Katherine Fisher; Mark Frasier; Luis Garcia-Gancedo; Jennifer C Goldsack; Derek Hill; Janice Hitchcock; Michele T Hu; Michael P Lawton; Susan J Lee; Michael Lindemann; Ken Marek; Nitin Mehrotra; Marjan J Meinders; Michael Minchik; Lauren Oliva; Klaus Romero; George Roussos; Robert Rubens; Sakshi Sadar; Joseph Scheeren; Eiichi Sengoku; Tanya Simuni; Glenn Stebbins; Kirsten I Taylor; Beatrice Yang; Neta Zach Journal: Digit Biomark Date: 2020-11-26
Authors: W Benjamin Nowell; Peter A Merkel; Robert N McBurney; Kalen Young; Shilpa Venkatachalam; Dianne G Shaw; Angela Dobes; Emily Cerciello; Laura Kolaczkowski; Jeffrey R Curtis; Michael D Kappelman Journal: Patient Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 3.883