Literature DB >> 33533721

Digital Medicine Community Perspectives and Challenges: Survey Study.

Brinnae Bent1, Ida Sim2, Jessilyn P Dunn1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The field of digital medicine has seen rapid growth over the past decade. With this unfettered growth, challenges surrounding interoperability have emerged as a critical barrier to translating digital medicine into practice. In order to understand how to mitigate challenges in digital medicine research and practice, this community must understand the landscape of digital medicine professionals, which digital medicine tools are being used and how, and user perspectives on current challenges in the field of digital medicine.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to provide information to the digital medicine community that is working to establish frameworks and best practices for interoperability in digital medicine. We sought to learn about the background of digital medicine professionals and determine which sensors and file types are being used most commonly in digital medicine research. We also sought to understand perspectives on digital medicine interoperability.
METHODS: We used a web-based survey to query a total of 56 digital medicine professionals from May 1, 2020, to July 10, 2020, on their educational and work experience, the sensors, file types, and toolkits they use professionally, and their perspectives on interoperability in digital medicine.
RESULTS: We determined that the digital medicine community comes from diverse educational backgrounds and uses a variety of sensors and file types. Sensors measuring physical activity and the cardiovascular system are the most frequently used, and smartphones continue to be the dominant source of digital health information collection in the digital medicine community. We show that there is not a general consensus on file types in digital medicine, and data are currently handled in multiple ways. There is consensus that interoperability is a critical impediment in digital medicine, with 93% (52) of survey respondents in agreement. However, only 36% (20) of respondents currently use tools for interoperability in digital medicine. We identified three key interoperability needs to be met: integration with electronic health records, implementation of standard data schemas, and standard and verifiable methods for digital medicine research. We show that digital medicine professionals are eager to adopt new tools to solve interoperability problems, and we suggest tools to support digital medicine interoperability.
CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the digital medicine community, the sensors and file types they use, and their perspectives on interoperability will enable the development and implementation of solutions that fill critical interoperability gaps in digital medicine. The challenges to interoperability outlined by this study will drive the next steps in creating an interoperable digital medicine community. Establishing best practices to address these challenges and employing platforms for digital medicine interoperability will be essential to furthering the field of digital medicine. ©Brinnae Bent, Ida Sim, Jessilyn P Dunn. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 03.02.2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  digital health; digital medicine; interoperability; mHealth; sensors; wearables

Year:  2021        PMID: 33533721      PMCID: PMC7889423          DOI: 10.2196/24570

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth        ISSN: 2291-5222            Impact factor:   4.773


  11 in total

1.  Relevance of eHealth standards for big data interoperability in radiology and beyond.

Authors:  Paolo Marcheschi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 2.  Wearables and the medical revolution.

Authors:  Jessilyn Dunn; Ryan Runge; Michael Snyder
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 2.512

3.  Developing and adopting safe and effective digital biomarkers to improve patient outcomes.

Authors:  Andrea Coravos; Sean Khozin; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2019-03-11

Review 4.  Why digital medicine depends on interoperability.

Authors:  Moritz Lehne; Julian Sass; Andrea Essenwanger; Josef Schepers; Sylvia Thun
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2019-08-20

Review 5.  Wearable Health Technology and Electronic Health Record Integration: Scoping Review and Future Directions.

Authors:  Catherine Dinh-Le; Rachel Chuang; Sara Chokshi; Devin Mann
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 4.773

6.  Windows Into Human Health Through Wearables Data Analytics.

Authors:  Daniel Witt; Ryan Kellogg; Michael Snyder; Jessilyn Dunn
Journal:  Curr Opin Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-01-28

7.  Digital Health and Health Systems of the Future.

Authors:  Alain Labrique; Lavanya Vasudevan; Garrett Mehl; Ellen Rosskam; Adnan A Hyder
Journal:  Glob Health Sci Pract       Date:  2018-10-10

Review 8.  Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs).

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

Review 9.  Modernizing and designing evaluation frameworks for connected sensor technologies in medicine.

Authors:  Andrea Coravos; Megan Doerr; Jennifer Goldsack; Christine Manta; Mark Shervey; Beau Woods; William A Wood
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-03-13

10.  Investigating sources of inaccuracy in wearable optical heart rate sensors.

Authors:  Brinnae Bent; Benjamin A Goldstein; Warren A Kibbe; Jessilyn P Dunn
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-02-10
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Detection and Monitoring of Viral Infections via Wearable Devices and Biometric Data.

Authors:  Craig J Goergen; MacKenzie J Tweardy; Steven R Steinhubl; Stephan W Wegerich; Karnika Singh; Rebecca J Mieloszyk; Jessilyn Dunn
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 11.324

2.  eHealth and mHealth Development in Spain: Promise or Reality?

Authors:  Xosé Mahou; Bran Barral; Ángela Fernández; Ramón Bouzas-Lorenzo; Andrés Cernadas
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.