Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14(05): 913-922
DOI: 10.1055/a-2174-7820
Review Article

Visualization of Patient-Generated Health Data: A Scoping Review of Dashboard Designs

Edna Shenvi
1   Elimu Informatics, El Cerrito, California, United States
,
Aziz Boxwala
1   Elimu Informatics, El Cerrito, California, United States
,
Dean Sittig
2   McWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
,
Courtney Zott
3   NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, United States
,
Edwin Lomotan
4   Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, United States
,
James Swiger
4   Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, United States
,
Prashila Dullabh
3   NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This work is based on research conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, Maryland, United States (contract no.: 75Q80120D00018 for the Clinical Decision Support Innovation Center [CDSiC]).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Patient-centered clinical decision support (PC CDS) aims to assist with tailoring decisions to an individual patient's needs. Patient-generated health data (PGHD), including physiologic measurements captured frequently by automated devices, provide important information for PC CDS. The volume and availability of such PGHD is increasing, but how PGHD should be presented to clinicians to best aid decision-making is unclear.

Objectives Identify best practices in visualizations of physiologic PGHD, for designing a software application as a PC CDS tool.

Methods We performed a scoping review of studies of PGHD dashboards that involved clinician users in design or evaluations. We included only studies that used physiologic PGHD from single patients for usage in decision-making.

Results We screened 468 titles and abstracts, 63 full-text papers, and identified 15 articles to include in our review. Some research primarily sought user input on PGHD presentation; other studies garnered feedback only as a side effort for other objectives (e.g., integration with electronic health records [EHRs]). Development efforts were often in the domains of chronic diseases and collected a mix of physiologic parameters (e.g., blood pressure and heart rate) and activity data. Users' preferences were for data to be presented with statistical summaries and clinical interpretations, alongside other non-PGHD data. Recurrent themes indicated that users desire longitudinal data display, aggregation of multiple data types on the same screen, actionability, and customization. Speed, simplicity, and availability of data for other purposes (e.g., documentation) were key to dashboard adoption. Evaluations were favorable for visualizations using common graphing or table formats, although best practices for implementation have not yet been established.

Conclusion Although the literature identified common themes on data display, measures, and usability, more research is needed as PGHD usage grows. Ensuring that care is tailored to individual needs will be important in future development of clinical decision support.

Keywords

clinical decision support - patient-centered care - shared decision-making - patient-generated health data - other clinical informatics applications - patient engagement

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

No human or animal subjects were included in this project.


Authors' Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the conception, design, and execution of this research. All authors participated in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content and gave final approval of the version published.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 05 June 2023

Accepted: 11 September 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
13 September 2023

Article published online:
22 November 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Gerteis M. Ed. Through the Patient's Eyes: Understanding and Promoting Patient-Centered-Care. 1st ed.. Jossey-BassTM An Imprint of Wiley; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Dullabh P, Sandberg SF, Heaney-Huls K. et al. Challenges and opportunities for advancing patient-centered clinical decision support: findings from a horizon scan. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2022; 29 (07) 1233-1243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 What are patient-generated health data? | HealthIT.gov. Accessed June 24, 2022 at: https://www.healthit.gov/topic/otherhot-topics/what-are-patient-generated-health-data
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Loncar-Turukalo T, Zdravevski E, Machado da Silva J, Chouvarda I, Trajkovik V. Literature on wearable technology for connected health: scoping review of research trends, advances, and barriers. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (09) e14017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boston D, Cohen D, Stone J. et al. Integrating patient-generated health data into electronic health records in ambulatory care settings: a practical guide. Prepared for: Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality Contract No. 75Q80120D00019 AHRQ Publication No. AHRQ 22-0013; 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cohen DJ, Keller SR, Hayes GR, Dorr DA, Ash JS, Sittig DF. Integrating patient-generated health data into clinical care settings or clinical decision-making: lessons learned from project HealthDesign. JMIR Human Factors 2016; 3 (02) e26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dullabh P, Heaney-Huls K, Lobach DF. et al. The technical landscape for patient-centered CDS: progress, gaps, and challenges. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2022; 29 (06) 1101-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ye J. The impact of electronic health record-integrated patient-generated health data on clinician burnout. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (05) 1051-1056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Unger T, Borghi C, Charchar F. et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension global hypertension practice guidelines. Hypertension 2020; 75 (06) 1334-1357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lavallee DC, Lee JR, Austin E. et al. mHealth and patient generated health data: stakeholder perspectives on opportunities and barriers for transforming healthcare. mHealth 2020; 6: 8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods 2014; 5 (04) 371-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8: 19-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B. et al; Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 130: 13-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9 (01) 59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Karni L, Jusufi I, Nyholm D, Klein GO, Memedi M. Toward improved treatment and empowerment of individuals with Parkinson disease: design and evaluation of an internet of things system. JMIR Form Res 2022; 6 (06) e31485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cassarino N, Bergstrom B, Johannes C, Gualtieri L. Monitoring older adult blood pressure trends at home as a proxy for brain health. Online J Public Health Inform 2021; 13 (03) e16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Alpert JM, Kota NSP, Ranka S. et al. A simulated graphical interface for integrating patient-generated health data from smartwatches with electronic health records: usability study. JMIR Human Factors 2020; 7 (04) e19769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Koopman RJ, Canfield SM, Belden JL. et al. Home blood pressure data visualization for the management of hypertension: designing for patient and physician information needs. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020; 20 (01) 195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Backonja U, Haynes SC, Kim KK. Data visualizations to support health practitioners' provision of personalized care for patients with cancer and multiple chronic conditions: user-centered design study. JMIR Human Factors 2018; 5 (04) e11826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gardner CL, Liu F, Fontelo P, Flanagan MC, Hoang A, Burke HB. Assessing the usability by clinicians of VISION: a hierarchical display of patient-collected physiological information to clinicians. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 (01) 41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Paterson M, McAulay A, McKinstry B. Integrating third-party telehealth records with the general practice electronic medical record system: a solution. J Innov Health Inform 2017; 24 (04) 915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Keogh A, Johnston W, Ashton M. et al. “It's not as simple as just looking at one chart”: a qualitative study exploring clinician's opinions on various visualisation strategies to represent longitudinal actigraphy data. Digit Biomark 2020; 4 (Suppl. 01) 87-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Salvi E, Bosoni P, Tibollo V. et al. Patient-generated health data integration and advanced analytics for diabetes management: the AID-GM platform. Sensors (Basel) 2019; 20 (01) E128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kumar RB, Goren ND, Stark DE, Wall DP, Longhurst CA. Automated integration of continuous glucose monitor data in the electronic health record using consumer technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (03) 532-537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jung SY, Kim JW, Hwang H. et al. Development of comprehensive personal health records integrating patient-generated health data directly from Samsung S-Health and Apple health apps: retrospective cross-sectional observational study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019; 7 (05) e12691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Weissmann J, Mueller A, Messinger D, Parkin CG, Amann-Zalan I. Improving the quality of outpatient diabetes care using an information management system: results from the observational VISION study. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015; 10 (01) 76-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cohen DJ, Wyte-Lake T, Canfield SM. et al. Impact of home blood pressure data visualization on hypertension medical decision making in primary care. Ann Fam Med 2022; 20 (04) 305-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pevnick JM, Elad Y, Masson LM, Riggs RV, Duncan RG. Patient-initiated data: our experience with enabling patients to initiate incorporation of heart rate data into the electronic health record. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (04) 671-679
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hsu WC, Lau KHK, Huang R. et al. Utilization of a cloud-based diabetes management program for insulin initiation and titration enables collaborative decision making between healthcare providers and patients. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016; 18 (02) 59-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tiase VL, Hull W, McFarland MM. et al. Patient-generated health data and electronic health record integration: a scoping review. JAMIA Open 2020; 3 (04) 619-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Zhang R, Burgess ER, Reddy MC. et al. Provider perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record. JAMIA Open 2019; 2 (01) 73-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rotenstein LS, Agarwal A, O'Neil K. et al. Implementing patient-reported outcome surveys as part of routine care: lessons from an academic radiation oncology department. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (05) 964-968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Shneiderman B. The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: VL '96 Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages. IEEE Computer Society Press; 1996: 336 . Accessed July 29, 2022 at: https://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/papers/Shneiderman1996eyes
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Brooke J. SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind. 1995: 189 . Accessed July 29, 2022 at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228593520_SUS_A_quick_and_dirt
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Affairs AS for P. System Usability Scale (SUS). September 6, 2013. Accessed July 7, 2022 at: https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Langer J, Zeiller M. Evaluation of the user experience of interactive infographics in online newspapers. Forum Media Technol 2017; x: 97-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Crossen S, Romero C, Reggiardo A, Michel J, Glaser N. Feasibility and impact of remote glucose monitoring among patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes: single-center pilot study. JMIR Diabetes 2022; 7 (01) e33639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Jeevanandan N, Nøhr C. Patient-generated health data in the clinic. Stud Health Technol Inform 2020; 270: 766-770
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Reading MJ, Merrill JA. Converging and diverging needs between patients and providers who are collecting and using patient-generated health data: an integrative review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (06) 759-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Blackford AL, Wu AW, Snyder C. Interpreting and acting on PRO results in clinical practice: lessons learned from the patient viewpoint system and beyond. Med Care 2019; 57 (Suppl 5 1): S46-S51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Melstrom LG, Rodin AS, Rossi LA, Fu Jr P, Fong Y, Sun V. Patient generated health data and electronic health record integration in oncologic surgery: a call for artificial intelligence and machine learning. J Surg Oncol 2021; 123 (01) 52-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar