U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Automated-Entry Patient-Generated Health Data for Chronic Conditions: The Evidence on Health Outcomes

Automated-Entry Patient-Generated Health Data for Chronic Conditions: The Evidence on Health Outcomes

Technical Brief, No. 38

Investigators: , Ph.D, , Ph.D., M.P.H., , M.S., , Ph.D., , M.D., and , M.D.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 21-EHC012

Structured Abstract

Background:

Automated-entry consumer devices that collect and transmit patient-generated health data (PGHD) are being evaluated as potential tools to aid in the management of chronic diseases. The need exists to evaluate the evidence regarding consumer PGHD technologies, particularly for devices that have not gone through Food and Drug Administration evaluation.

Purpose:

To summarize the research related to automated-entry consumer health technologies that provide PGHD for the prevention or management of 11 chronic diseases.

Methods:

The project scope was determined through discussions with Key Informants. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (via EMBASE.com), In-Process MEDLINE and PubMed unique content (via PubMed.gov), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews or controlled trials. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data on health outcomes, surrogate outcomes, usability, sustainability, cost-effectiveness outcomes (quantifying the tradeoffs between health effects and cost), process outcomes, and other characteristics related to PGHD technologies. For isolated effects on health outcomes, we classified the results in one of four categories: (1) likely no effect, (2) unclear, (3) possible positive effect, or (4) likely positive effect. When we categorized the data as “unclear” based solely on health outcomes, we then examined and classified surrogate outcomes for that particular clinical condition.

Findings:

We identified 114 unique studies that met inclusion criteria. The largest number of studies addressed patients with hypertension (51 studies) and obesity (43 studies). Eighty-four trials used a single PGHD device, 23 used 2 PGHD devices, and the other 7 used 3 or more PGHD devices. Pedometers, blood pressure (BP) monitors, and scales were commonly used in the same studies. Overall, we found a “possible positive effect” of PGHD interventions on health outcomes for coronary artery disease, heart failure, and asthma. For obesity, we rated the health outcomes as unclear, and the surrogate outcomes (body mass index/weight) as likely no effect. For hypertension, we rated the health outcomes as unclear, and the surrogate outcomes (systolic BP/diastolic BP) as possible positive effect. For cardiac arrhythmias or conduction abnormalities we rated the health outcomes as unclear and the surrogate outcome (time to arrhythmia detection) as likely positive effect. The findings were “unclear” regarding PGHD interventions for diabetes prevention, sleep apnea, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Most studies did not report harms related to PGHD interventions; the relatively few harms reported were minor and transient, with event rates usually comparable to harms in the control groups. Few studies reported cost-effectiveness analyses, and only for PGHD interventions for hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; the findings were variable across different chronic conditions and devices. Patient adherence to PGHD interventions was highly variable across studies, but patient acceptance/satisfaction and usability was generally fair to good. However, device engineers independently evaluated consumer wearable and handheld BP monitors and considered the user experience to be poor, while their assessment of smartphone-based electrocardiogram monitors found the user experience to be good. Student volunteers involved in device usability testing of the Weight Watchers Online app found it well-designed and relatively easy to use.

Implications:

Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated some PGHD technologies (e.g., pedometers, scales, BP monitors), particularly for obesity and hypertension, but health outcomes were generally underreported. We found evidence suggesting a possible positive effect of PGHD interventions on health outcomes for four chronic conditions. Lack of reporting of health outcomes and insufficient statistical power to assess these outcomes were the main reasons for “unclear” ratings. The majority of studies on PGHD technologies still focus on non-health-related outcomes. Future RCTs should focus on measurement of health outcomes. Furthermore,future RCTs should be designed to isolate the effect of the PGHD intervention from other components in a multicomponent intervention.

Contents

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; www.ahrq.gov Contract No. 290-2015-00005-I Prepared by: ECRI-Penn Evidence-based Practice Center

Suggested citation:

Treadwell JR, Reston JT, Rouse B, Fontanarosa J, Patel N, Mull NK. Automated-Entry Patient-Generated Health Data for Chronic Conditions: The Evidence on Health Outcomes. Technical Brief No. 38 (Prepared by the ECRI-Penn Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2015-00005-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 21-EHC012. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March 2021. Posted final reports are located on the Effective Health Care Program search page. DOI: 10.23970/AHRQEPCTB38.

This report is based on research conducted by the ECRI-Penn EPC under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2015-00005-I) with funding provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decision makers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of healthcare services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information (i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients).

This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and AHRQ. This report may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the report. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the express permission of copyright holders.

AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies may not be stated or implied.

This report may periodically be assessed for the currency of conclusions. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program website at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.

AHRQ appreciates appropriate acknowledgment and citation of its work. Suggested language for acknowledgment: This work was based on an evidence report, Automated-Entry Patient-Generated Health Data for Chronic Conditions: The Evidence on Health Outcomes, by the Evidence-based Practice Center Program at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

Bookshelf ID: NBK568443PMID: 33724747

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (3.9M)

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...