Defining the Dimensions of Diversity to Promote Inclusion in the Digital Era of Health Care: A Lexicon.

The pandemic provided a stark reminder of the inequities faced by populations historically marginalized by the health care system and accelerated the adoption of digital health technologies to drive innovation. Digital health technologies' purported promises to reduce inefficiencies and costs, improve access and health outcomes, and empower patients add a new level of urgency to health equity. As conventional medicine shifts toward digital medicine, we have the opportunity to intentionally develop and deploy digital health technologies with an inclusion focus. The first step is ensuring that the multiple dimensions of diversity are captured. We propose a lexicon that encompasses elements critical for implementing an inclusive approach to advancing health care quality and health services research in the digital era.

A patient-centred conceptual model of nocturnal scratch and its impact in atopic dermatitis: A mixed-methods study supporting the development of novel digital measurements.

Background: Emerging digital measures and clinical outcome assessments (COAs) leveraging digital health technologies (DHTs) could address the need for objective, quantitative measures of symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), such as nocturnal scratching. Development of such measures needs to be supported by evidence reflecting meaningfulness to patients. Objectives: To assess nocturnal scratching as a concept of interest associated with meaningful aspects of health of patients with AD (adults and children); and to explore patient-centred considerations for novel COAs measuring nocturnal scratch using DHTs. Methods: Phase 1 evaluated disease impacts on everyday life and the lived experience with nocturnal scratching through qualitative interviews of AD patients and caregivers. Phase 2 deployed a quantitative survey to a sample of AD patients as well as caregivers. Results: Four cohorts with various AD severity levels participated in Phase 1: (1) adults with AD (n = 15), (2) their caregivers/spouses/partners (n = 6), (3) children with AD (n = 14), and (4) their adult caregivers (n = 14). Findings were used to develop a conceptual model for nocturnal scratching as a potential concept of interest. The Phase 2 survey was completed by 1349 of 27640 invited adults with AD and caregivers of children with AD. The most burdensome aspects of AD reported were itchy skin and scratching. Overall, ∼65% of participants reported nocturnal scratching ≥1 day/week, resulting in ∼1-1.4 h of sleep lost per night. In all, 85%-91% of respondents considered it at least somewhat valuable that a treatment reduces night-time scratching. About 50% reported willingness to use technology to this end and ∼25% were unsure. Conclusion: Our results represented by the conceptual model confirm that nocturnal scratch is a concept of interest related to meaningful aspects of health for patients with AD and therefore is worth being captured as a distinct outcome for clinical and research purposes. DHTs are suitable tools presenting an important measurement opportunity to assess and evaluate occurrence, frequency, and other parameters of nocturnal scratching as a disease biomarker or COA of treatment efficacy.

Building the Business Case for an Inclusive Approach to Digital Health Measurement With a Web App (Market Opportunity Calculator): Instrument Development Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of digital health measurement tools has grown substantially in recent years. However, there are concerns that the promised benefits from these products will not be shared equitably. Underserved populations, such as those with lower education and income, racial and ethnic minorities, and those with disabilities, may find such tools poorly suited for their needs. Because underserved populations shoulder a disproportionate share of the US disease burden, they also represent a substantial share of digital health companies' target markets. Incorporating inclusive principles into the product development process can help ensure that the resulting tools are broadly accessible and effective. In this context, inclusivity not only maximizes societal benefit but also leads to greater commercial success. OBJECTIVE: A critical element in fostering inclusive product development is building the business case for why it is worthwhile. The Digital Health Measurement Collaborative Community (DATAcc) Market Opportunity Calculator was developed as an open-access resource to enable digital health measurement product developers to build a business case for incorporating inclusive practices into their research and development processes. METHODS: The DATAcc Market Opportunity Calculator combines data on population demographics and disease prevalence and health status from the US Census Bureau and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Together, these data are used to calculate the share of US adults with specific conditions (eg, diabetes) falling into various population segments along key "inclusion vectors" (eg, race and ethnicity). RESULTS: A free and open resource, the DATAcc Market Opportunity Calculator can be accessed from the DATAcc website. Users first select the target health condition addressed by their product, and then an inclusion vector to segment the patient population. The calculator displays each segment as a share of the overall US adult population and its share specifically among adults with the target condition, quantifying the importance of underserved patient segments to the target market. The calculator also estimates the value of improvements to product inclusivity by modeling the downstream impact on the accessible market size. For example, simplifying prompts on a hypertension-focused product to make it more accessible for adults with lower educational attainment is shown by the calculator to increase the target market by 2 million people and the total addressable market opportunity by US $200 million. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health measurement is still in its infancy. Now is the time to establish a precedent for inclusive product development to maximize societal benefit and build sustainable commercial returns. The Market Opportunity Calculator can help build the business case for "why"-showing how inclusivity can translate to financial opportunity. Once the decision has been made to pursue inclusive design, other components of the broader DATAcc toolkit for inclusive product development can support the "how."

Rigorous and rapid evidence assessment in digital health with the evidence DEFINED framework.

Dozens of frameworks have been proposed to assess evidence for digital health interventions (DHIs), but existing frameworks may not facilitate DHI evidence reviews that meet the needs of stakeholder organizations including payers, health systems, trade organizations, and others. These organizations may benefit from a DHI assessment framework that is both rigorous and rapid. Here we propose a framework to assess Evidence in Digital health for EFfectiveness of INterventions with Evaluative Depth (Evidence DEFINED). Designed for real-world use, the Evidence DEFINED Quick Start Guide may help streamline DHI assessment. A checklist is provided summarizing high-priority evidence considerations in digital health. Evidence-to-recommendation guidelines are proposed, specifying degrees of adoption that may be appropriate for a range of evidence quality levels. Evidence DEFINED differs from prior frameworks in its inclusion of unique elements designed for rigor and speed. Rigor is increased by addressing three gaps in prior frameworks. First, prior frameworks are not adapted adequately to address evidence considerations that are unique to digital health. Second, prior frameworks do not specify evidence quality criteria requiring increased vigilance for DHIs in the current regulatory context. Third, extant frameworks rarely leverage established, robust methodologies that were developed for non-digital interventions. Speed is achieved in the Evidence DEFINED Framework through screening optimization and deprioritization of steps that may have limited value. The primary goals of Evidence DEFINED are to a) facilitate standardized, rapid, rigorous DHI evidence assessment in organizations and b) guide digital health solutions providers who wish to generate evidence that drives DHI adoption.

Defining the Digital Measurement of Scratching During Sleep or Nocturnal Scratching: Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Digital sensing solutions represent a convenient, objective, relatively inexpensive method that could be leveraged for assessing symptoms of various health conditions. Recent progress in the capabilities of digital sensing products has targeted the measurement of scratching during sleep, traditionally referred to as nocturnal scratching, in patients with atopic dermatitis or other skin conditions. Many solutions measuring nocturnal scratch have been developed; however, a lack of efforts toward standardization of the measure's definition and contextualization of scratching during sleep hampers the ability to compare different technologies for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to address this gap and bring forth unified measurement definitions for nocturnal scratch. METHODS: We performed a narrative literature review of definitions of scratching in patients with skin inflammation and a targeted literature review of sleep in the context of the period during which such scratching occurred. Both searches were limited to English language studies in humans. The extracted data were synthesized into themes based on study characteristics: scratch as a behavior, other characterization of the scratching movement, and measurement parameters for both scratch and sleep. We then developed ontologies for the digital measurement of sleep scratching. RESULTS: In all, 29 studies defined inflammation-related scratching between 1996 and 2021. When cross-referenced with the results of search terms describing the sleep period, only 2 of these scratch-related papers also described sleep-related variables. From these search results, we developed an evidence-based and patient-centric definition of nocturnal scratch: an action of rhythmic and repetitive skin contact movement performed during a delimited time period of intended and actual sleep that is not restricted to any specific time of the day or night. Based on the measurement properties identified in the searches, we developed ontologies of relevant concepts that can be used as a starting point to develop standardized outcome measures of scratching during sleep in patients with inflammatory skin conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This work is intended to serve as a foundation for the future development of unified and well-described digital health technologies measuring nocturnal scratching and should enable better communication and sharing of results between various stakeholders taking part in research in atopic dermatitis and other inflammatory skin conditions.

Advancing Digital Health Innovation in Oncology: Priorities for High-Value Digital Transformation in Cancer Care.

Although health care delivery is becoming increasingly digitized, driven by the pursuit of improved access, equity, efficiency, and effectiveness, progress does not appear to be equally distributed across therapeutic areas. Oncology is renowned for leading innovation in research and in care; digital pathology, digital radiology, real-world data, next-generation sequencing, patient-reported outcomes, and precision approaches driven by complex data and biomarkers are hallmarks of the field. However, remote patient monitoring, decentralized approaches to care and research, "hospital at home," and machine learning techniques have yet to be broadly deployed to improve cancer care. In response, the Digital Medicine Society and Moffitt Cancer Center convened a multistakeholder roundtable discussion to bring together leading experts in cancer care and digital innovation. This viewpoint highlights the findings from these discussions, in which experts agreed that digital innovation is lagging in oncology relative to other therapeutic areas. It reports that this lag is most likely attributed to poor articulation of the challenges in cancer care and research best suited to digital solutions, lack of incentives and support, and missing standardized infrastructure to implement digital innovations. It concludes with suggestions for actions needed to bring the promise of digitization to cancer care to improve lives.

Outcomes of In-Person and Telehealth Ambulatory Encounters During COVID-19 Within a Large Commercially Insured Cohort.

Importance: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, few studies have assessed the association of telehealth with outcomes of care, including patterns of health care use after the initial encounter. Objective: To assess the association of telehealth and in-person visits with outcomes of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed continuously enrolled members in private health plans of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association from July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were ambulatory encounters per enrollee stratified by characteristics derived from enrollment files, practitioner claims, and community characteristics linked to the enrollee's zip code. Outcomes of care were assessed 14 days after the initial encounters and included follow-up encounters of any kind, emergency department encounters, and hospitalizations after initial telehealth or in-person encounters. Results: In this cohort study of 40 739 915 individuals (mean [SD] age, 35.37 [18.77] years; 20 480 768 [50.3%] female), ambulatory encounters decreased by 1.0% and the number of in-person encounters per enrollee decreased by 17.0% from 2019 to 2020; however, as a proportion of all ambulatory encounters, telehealth encounters increased substantially from 0.6% (n = 236 220) to 14.1% (n = 5 743 718). For members with an initial telehealth encounter for a new acute condition, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.42-1.46) for all follow-ups combined and 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.16) for an emergency department encounter. For members with an initial telehealth encounter for a new chronic condition, the adjusted odds ratios were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) for all follow-ups combined and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90-0.99) for in-patient admissions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 40.7 million commercially insured adults, telehealth accounted for a large share of ambulatory encounters at the peak of the pandemic and remained prevalent after infection rates subsided. Telehealth encounters for chronic conditions had similar rates of follow-up to in-person encounters for these conditions, whereas telehealth encounters for acute conditions seemed to be more likely than in-person encounters to require follow-up. These findings suggest a direction for future work and are relevant to policy makers, payers, and practitioners as they manage the use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic and afterward.

Advancing digital health applications: priorities for innovation in real-world evidence generation.

In 2019, Germany passed the Digital Healthcare Act, which, among other things, created a "Fast-Track" regulatory and reimbursement pathway for digital health applications in the German market. The pathway explicitly provides for flexibility in how researchers can present evidence for new digital products, including the use of real-world data and real-world evidence. Against this backdrop, the Digital Medicine Society and the Health Innovation Hub of the German Federal Ministry of Health convened a set of roundtable discussions to bring together international experts in evidence generation for digital medicine products. This Viewpoint highlights findings from these discussions with the aims of (1) accelerating and stimulating innovative approaches to digital medical product evaluation, and (2) promoting international harmonisation of best evidentiary practices. Advancing these topics and fostering international agreement on evaluation approaches will be vital to the safe, effective, and evidence-based deployment and acceptance of digital health applications globally.

Sensor Data Integration: A New Cross-Industry Collaboration to Articulate Value, Define Needs, and Advance a Framework for Best Practices.

Data integration, the processes by which data are aggregated, combined, and made available for use, has been key to the development and growth of many technological solutions. In health care, we are experiencing a revolution in the use of sensors to collect data on patient behaviors and experiences. Yet, the potential of this data to transform health outcomes is being held back. Deficits in standards, lexicons, data rights, permissioning, and security have been well documented, less so the cultural adoption of sensor data integration as a priority for large-scale deployment and impact on patient lives. The use and reuse of trustworthy data to make better and faster decisions across drug development and care delivery will require an understanding of all stakeholder needs and best practices to ensure these needs are met. The Digital Medicine Society is launching a new multistakeholder Sensor Data Integration Tour of Duty to address these challenges and more, providing a clear direction on how sensor data can fulfill its potential to enhance patient lives.

Recent Academic Research on Clinically Relevant Digital Measures: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital clinical measures collected via various digital sensing technologies such as smartphones, smartwatches, wearables, ingestibles, and implantables are increasingly used by individuals and clinicians to capture health outcomes or behavioral and physiological characteristics of individuals. Although academia is taking an active role in evaluating digital sensing products, academic contributions to advancing the safe, effective, ethical, and equitable use of digital clinical measures are poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to characterize the nature of academic research on digital clinical measures and to compare and contrast the types of sensors used and the sources of funding support for specific subareas of this research. METHODS: We conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles reporting US-led academic research on digital clinical measures between January 2019 and February 2021. We screened each publication against specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and categorized research studies based on the types of academic research, sensors used, and funding sources. Finally, we compared and contrasted the funding support for these specific subareas of research and sensor types. RESULTS: The search retrieved 4240 articles of interest. Following the screening, 295 articles remained for data extraction and categorization. The top five research subareas included operations research (research analysis; n=225, 76%), analytical validation (n=173, 59%), usability and utility (data visualization; n=123, 42%), verification (n=93, 32%), and clinical validation (n=83, 28%). The three most underrepresented areas of research into digital clinical measures were ethics (n=0, 0%), security (n=1, 0.5%), and data rights and governance (n=1, 0.5%). Movement and activity trackers were the most commonly studied sensor type, and physiological (mechanical) sensors were the least frequently studied. We found that government agencies are providing the most funding for research on digital clinical measures (n=192, 65%), followed by independent foundations (n=109, 37%) and industries (n=56, 19%), with the remaining 12% (n=36) of these studies completely unfunded. CONCLUSIONS: Specific subareas of academic research related to digital clinical measures are not keeping pace with the rapid expansion and adoption of digital sensing products. An integrated and coordinated effort is required across academia, academic partners, and academic funders to establish the field of digital clinical measures as an evidence-based field worthy of our trust.

EVIDENCE Publication Checklist for Studies Evaluating Connected Sensor Technologies: Explanation and Elaboration.

The EVIDENCE (EValuatIng connecteD sENsor teChnologiEs) checklist was developed by a multidisciplinary group of content experts convened by the Digital Medicine Society, representing the clinical sciences, data management, technology development, and biostatistics. The aim of EVIDENCE is to promote high quality reporting in studies where the primary objective is an evaluation of a digital measurement product or its constituent parts. Here we use the terms digital measurement product and connected sensor technology interchangeably to refer to tools that process data captured by mobile sensors using algorithms to generate measures of behavioral and/or physiological function. EVIDENCE is applicable to 5 types of evaluations: (1) proof of concept; (2) verification, (3) analytical validation, and (4) clinical validation as defined by the V3 framework; and (5) utility and usability assessments. Using EVIDENCE, those preparing, reading, or reviewing studies evaluating digital measurement products will be better equipped to distinguish necessary reporting requirements to drive high-quality research. With broad adoption, the EVIDENCE checklist will serve as a much-needed guide to raise the bar for quality reporting in published literature evaluating digital measurements products.

Evaluation, Acceptance, and Qualification of Digital Measures: From Proof of Concept to Endpoint.

To support the successful adoption of digital measures into internal decision making and evidence generation for medical product development, we present a unified lexicon to aid communication throughout this process, and highlight key concepts including the critical role of participant engagement in development of digital measures. We detail the steps of bringing a successful proof of concept to scale, focusing on key decisions in the development of a new digital measure: asking the right question, optimized approaches to evaluating new measures, and whether and how to pursue qualification or acceptance. Building on the V3 framework for establishing verification and analytical and clinical validation, we discuss strategic and practical considerations for collecting this evidence, illustrated with concrete examples of trailblazing digital measures in the field.

Digital Measures That Matter to Patients: A Framework to Guide the Selection and Development 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.

Underuse of oral anticoagulants in privately insured patients with atrial fibrillation: A population being targeted by the IMplementation of a randomized controlled trial to imProve treatment with oral AntiCoagulanTs in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AFib).

BACKGROUND: Many studies showing underuse of oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) predated the advent of the non-vitamin K antagonist OACs. We retrospectively examined use of OACs in a large commercially insured population. METHODS: Administrative claims data from 4 research partners participating in FDA-Catalyst, a program of the Sentinel Initiative, were queried in September 2017. Patients were included if they were ≥30 years old with ≥365 days of medical/pharmacy coverage, and had ≥2 diagnosis codes for AF, a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2, absence of contraindications to OAC use, and no evidence of OAC use in the 365 days before the index AF diagnosis. The main outcome measures of the current analysis were rates of OAC use in the prior 12 months of cohort identification and factors associated with non-use. RESULTS: A total of 197,806 AF patients met the eligibility criteria prior to assessment of OAC treatment. Of these, 179,580 (91%) patients were ≥65 years old and 73,286 (37%) patients were ≥80 years old. Half of the patients (98,903) were randomized to the early intervention arm in the IMPACT-AFib trial and constitute the cohort for this analysis. Of these, 32,295 (33%) had no evidence of OAC use in the prior 12 months. Compared with patients with evidence of OAC use in the prior 12 months, patients without OAC use were more likely to be ≥80 years old, women, and have a history of anemia (51% vs 47%) and less likely to have diabetes (41% vs 44%), history of stroke or TIA (15% vs 19%), and history of heart failure (39% vs 48%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high risk of stroke, one-third of privately insured patients with AF and no obvious contraindications to an OAC were not treated with an OAC. There is an unmet need for evidence-based interventions that could lead to greater use of OACs in patients with AF at risk for stroke.

BioMeT and Algorithm Challenges: A Proposed Digital Standardized Evaluation Framework.

Technology is advancing at an extraordinary rate. Continuous flows of novel data are being generated with the potential to revolutionize how we better identify, treat, manage, and prevent disease across therapeutic areas. However, lack of security of confidence in digital health technologies is hampering adoption, particularly for biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) where frontline healthcare professionals are struggling to determine which BioMeTs are fit-for-purpose and in which context. Here, we discuss the challenges to adoption and offer pragmatic guidance regarding BioMeTs, cumulating in a proposed framework to advance their development and deployment in healthcare, health research, and health promotion. Furthermore, the framework proposes a process to establish an audit trail of BioMeTs (hardware and algorithms), to instill trust amongst multidisciplinary users.

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

Digital medicine is an interdisciplinary field, drawing together stakeholders with expertize in engineering, manufacturing, clinical science, data science, biostatistics, regulatory science, ethics, patient advocacy, and healthcare policy, to name a few. Although this diversity is undoubtedly valuable, it can lead to confusion regarding terminology and best practices. There are many instances, as we detail in this paper, where a single term is used by different groups to mean different things, as well as cases where multiple terms are used to describe essentially the same concept. Our intent is to clarify core terminology and best practices for the evaluation of Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs), without unnecessarily introducing new terms. We focus on the evaluation of BioMeTs as fit-for-purpose for use in clinical trials. However, our intent is for this framework to be instructional to all users of digital measurement tools, regardless of setting or intended use. We propose and describe a three-component framework intended to provide a foundational evaluation framework for BioMeTs. This framework includes (1) verification, (2) analytical validation, and (3) clinical validation. We aim for this common vocabulary to enable more effective communication and collaboration, generate a common and meaningful evidence base for BioMeTs, and improve the accessibility of the digital medicine field.

Erratum: Publisher Correction: Modernizing and designing evaluation frameworks for connected sensor technologies in medicine.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/s41746-020-0237-3.].

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

This manuscript is focused on the use of connected sensor technologies, including wearables and other biosensors, for a wide range of health services, such as collecting digital endpoints in clinical trials and remotely monitoring patients in clinical care. The adoption of these technologies poses five risks that currently exceed our abilities to evaluate and secure these products: (1) validation, (2) security practices, (3) data rights and governance, (4) utility and usability; and (5) economic feasibility. In this manuscript we conduct a landscape analysis of emerging evaluation frameworks developed to better manage these risks, broadly in digital health. We then propose a framework specifically for connected sensor technologies. We provide a pragmatic guide for how to put this evaluation framework into practice, taking lessons from concepts in drug and nutrition labels to craft a connected sensor technology label.