Patient-generated health data (PGHD), created and captured from patients via wearable devices and mobile apps, are proliferating outside of clinical settings. Examples include sleep tracking, fitness trackers, continuous glucose monitors, and RFID-enabled implants, with many additional biometric or health surveillance applications in development or envisioned. These data are included in growing stockpiles of personal health data being mined for insight via big data analytics and artificial intelligence/deep learning technologies. Governing these data resources to facilitate patient care and health research while preserving individual privacy and autonomy will be challenging, as PGHD are the least regulated domains of digitalized personal health data (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). When patients themselves collect digitalized PGHD using “apps” provided by technology firms, these data fall outside of conventional health data regulation, such as HIPAA. Instead, PGHD are maintained primarily on the information technology infrastructure of vendors, and data are governed under the IT firm’s own privacy policies and within the firm’s intellectual property rights. Dominant narratives position these highly personal data as valuable resources to transform healthcare, stimulate innovation in medical research, and engage individuals in their health and healthcare. However, ensuring privacy, security, and equity of benefits from PGHD will be challenging. PGHD can be aggregated and, despite putative “deidentification,” be linked with other health, economic, and social data for predictive analytics. As large tech companies enter the healthcare sector (e.g., Google Health is partnering with Ascension Health to analyze the PHI of millions of people across 21 U.S. states), the lack of harmonization between regulatory regimes may render existing safeguards to preserve patient privacy and control over their PHI ineffective. While healthcare providers are bound to adhere to health privacy laws, Big Tech comes under more relaxed regulatory regimes that will facilitate monetizing PGHD. We explore three existing data protection regimes relevant to PGHD in the United States that are currently in tension with one another: federal and state health-sector laws, data use and reuse for research and innovation, and industry self-regulation by large tech companies We then identify three types of structures (organizational, regulatory, technological/algorithmic), which synergistically could help enact needed regulatory oversight while limiting the friction and economic costs of regulation. This analysis provides a starting point for further discussions and negotiations among stakeholders and regulators to do so.
more »
« less
Opportunities for Oral Health Monitoring Technologies Beyond the Dental Clinic
Personal health and wellness technologies can improve
people’s care at home, connect everyday activities to
clinical settings, and allow more efficient use of clinical
resources. Recently, the Human-Computer Interaction
community has begun to develop tools to improve oral care.
In this research, we investigate dental practices and
information needs through surveys and interviews with a
range of patients and oral health providers. We find that
personal users want to track their progress—or lack
thereof—between dental visits for feedback, so they can
adjust their home care routines, or so they can seek an
escalation in care if they identify a problem. Among
providers and clinical health workers, there exists an
opportunity for better screening and diagnostic tools to
identify dental caries at early stages. Providers in rural areas
desire better tools to communicate problem areas to patients
and their caregivers to bridge oral health care disparities in
areas with limited access to care. Our results can guide the
development of dental technologies that can address
currently unmet needs of patients and providers.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1631146
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10107453
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PervasiveHealth'18
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 327 to 335
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Patient-generated health data (PGHD), created and captured from patients via wearable devices and mobile apps, are proliferating outside of clinical settings. Examples include sleep tracking, fitness trackers, continuous glucose monitors, and RFID-enabled implants, with many additional biometric or health surveillance applications in development or envisioned. These data are included in growing stockpiles of personal health data being mined for insight via big data analytics and artificial intelligence/deep learning technologies. Governing these data resources to facilitate patient care and health research while preserving individual privacy and autonomy will be challenging, as PGHD are the least regulated domains of digitalized personal health data (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). When patients themselves collect digitalized PGHD using “apps” provided by technology firms, these data fall outside of conventional health data regulation, such as HIPAA. Instead, PGHD are maintained primarily on the information technology infrastructure of vendors, and data are governed under the IT firm’s own privacy policies and within the firm’s intellectual property rights. Dominant narratives position these highly personal data as valuable resources to transform healthcare, stimulate innovation in medical research, and engage individuals in their health and healthcare. However, ensuring privacy, security, and equity of benefits from PGHD will be challenging. PGHD can be aggregated and, despite putative “deidentification,” be linked with other health, economic, and social data for predictive analytics. As large tech companies enter the healthcare sector (e.g., Google Health is partnering with Ascension Health to analyze the PHI of millions of people across 21 U.S. states), the lack of harmonization between regulatory regimes may render existing safeguards to preserve patient privacy and control over their PHI ineffective. While healthcare providers are bound to adhere to health privacy laws, Big Tech comes under more relaxed regulatory regimes that will facilitate monetizing PGHD. We explore three existing data protection regimes relevant to PGHD in the United States that are currently in tension with one another: federal and state health-sector laws, data use and reuse for research and innovation, and industry self-regulation by large tech companies We then identify three types of structures (organizational, regulatory, technological/algorithmic), which synergistically could help enact needed regulatory oversight while limiting the friction and economic costs of regulation. This analysis provides a starting point for further discussions and negotiations among stakeholders and regulators to do so.more » « less
-
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven Digital Health (DH) systems are poised to play a critical role in the future of healthcare. In 2021, $57.2 billion was invested in DH systems around the world, recognizing the promise this concept holds for aiding in delivery and care management. DH systems traditionally include a blend of various technologies, AI, and physiological biomarkers and have shown a potential to provide support for individuals with various health conditions. Digital therapeutics (DTx) is a more specific set of technology-enabled interventions within the broader DH sphere intended to produce a measurable therapeutic effect. DTx tools can empower both patients and healthcare providers, informing the course of treatment through data-driven interventions while collecting data in real-time and potentially reducing the number of patient office visits needed. In particular, socially assistive robots (SARs), as a DTx tool, can be a beneficial asset to DH systems since data gathered from sensors onboard the robot can help identify in-home behaviors, activity patterns, and health status of patients remotely. Furthermore, linking the robotic sensor data to other DH system components, and enabling SAR to function as part of an Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem, can create a broader picture of patient health outcomes. The main challenge with DTx, and DH systems in general, is that the sheer volume and limited oversight of different DH systems and DTxs is hindering validation efforts (from technical, clinical, system, and privacy standpoints) and consequently slowing widespread adoption of these treatment tools.more » « less
-
Due to the essential role of dentists in stopping the COVID-19 pandemic, the purpose of this review is to help dentists to detect any weaknesses in their disinfection and cross-contamination prevention protocols, and to triage dental treatments to meet the needs of patients during the pandemic. We used PRISMA to identify peer-reviewed publications which supplemented guidance from the center for disease control about infection control and guidelines for dentists. Dentists must triage dental treatments to meet the needs of patients during the pandemic. The ongoing pandemic has changed the practice of dentistry forever, the changes make it more cumbersome, time-consuming, and costly due to the possible pathways of transmission and mitigation steps needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Dental chairside rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 are urgently needed. Until then, dentists need to screen patients for COVID-19 even though 75% of people with COVID-19 have no symptoms. Despite the widespread anxiety and fear of the devastating health effects of COVID-19, only 61% of dentists have implemented a change to their treatment protocols. As an urgent matter of public health, all dentists must identify the additional steps they can take to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The most effective steps to stop the pandemic in dental offices are to; vaccinate all dentists, staff, and patients; triage dental treatments for patients, separate vulnerable patients, separate COVID-19 patients, prevent cross-contamination, disinfect areas touched by patients, maintain social distancing, and change personal protective equipment between patients.more » « less
-
Background Digital health is poised to transform health care and redefine personalized health. As Internet and mobile phone usage increases, as technology develops new ways to collect data, and as clinical guidelines change, all areas of medicine face new challenges and opportunities. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is one of many chronic diseases that may benefit from these advances in digital health. This review intends to lay a foundation for clinicians and technologists to understand future directions and opportunities together. Objective This review covers mobile health apps that have been used in IBD, how they have fit into a clinical care framework, and the challenges that clinicians and technologists face in approaching future opportunities. Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify mobile apps that have been studied and were published in the literature from January 1, 2010, to April 19, 2019. The search terms were (“mobile health” OR “eHealth” OR “digital health” OR “smart phone” OR “mobile app” OR “mobile applications” OR “mHealth” OR “smartphones”) AND (“IBD” OR “Inflammatory bowel disease” OR “Crohn's Disease” (CD) OR “Ulcerative Colitis” (UC) OR “UC” OR “CD”), followed by further analysis of citations from the results. We searched the Apple iTunes app store to identify a limited selection of commercial apps to include for discussion. Results A total of 68 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 11 digital health apps were identified in the literature and 4 commercial apps were selected to be described in this review. While most apps have some educational component, the majority of apps focus on eliciting patient-reported outcomes related to disease activity, and a few are for treatment management. Significant benefits have been seen in trials relating to education, quality of life, quality of care, treatment adherence, and medication management. No studies have reported a negative impact on any of the above. There are mixed results in terms of effects on office visits and follow-up. Conclusions While studies have shown that digital health can fit into, complement, and improve the standard clinical care of patients with IBD, there is a need for further validation and improvement, from both a clinical and patient perspective. Exploring new research methods, like microrandomized trials, may allow for more implementation of technology and rapid advancement of knowledge. New technologies that can objectively and seamlessly capture remote data, as well as complement the clinical shift from symptom-based to inflammation-based care, will help the clinical and health technology communities to understand the full potential of digital health in the care of IBD and other chronic illnesses.more » « less