Search

BackgroundIncreasing adoption of sensor-based digital health technologies (sDHTs) in recent years has cast light on the many challenges in implementing these tools into clinical trials and patient care at scale across diverse patient populations; however, the methodological approaches taken toward sDHT usability evaluation have varied markedly. ObjectiveThis review aims to explore the current landscape of studies reporting data related to sDHT human factors, human-centered design, and usability, to inform our concurrent work on developing an evaluation framework for sDHT usability. MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of studies published between 2013 and 2023 and indexed in PubMed, in which data related to sDHT human factors, human-centered design, and usability were reported. Following a systematic screening process, we extracted the study design, participant sample, the sDHT or sDHTs used, the methods of data capture, and the types of usability-related data captured. ResultsOur literature search returned 442 papers, of which 85 papers were found to be eligible and 83 papers were available for data extraction and not under embargo. In total, 164 sDHTs were evaluated; 141 (86%) sDHTs were wearable tools while the remaining 23 (14%) sDHTs were ambient tools. The majority of studies (55/83, 66%) reported summative evaluations of final-design sDHTs. Almost all studies (82/83, 99%) captured data from targeted end users, but only 18 (22%) out of 83 studies captured data from additional users such as care partners or clinicians. User satisfaction and ease of use were evaluated for 83% (136/164) and 91% (150/164) of sDHTs, respectively; however, learnability, efficiency, and memorability were reported for only 11 (7%), 4 (2%), and 2 (1%) out of 164 sDHTs, respectively. A total of 14 (9%) out of 164 sDHTs were evaluated according to the extent to which users were able to understand the clinical data or other information presented to them (understandability) or the actions or tasks they should complete in response (actionability). Notable gaps in reporting included the absence of a sample size rationale (reported for 21/83, 25% of all studies and 17/55, 31% of summative studies) and incomplete sociodemographic descriptive data (complete age, sex/gender, and race/ethnicity reported for 14/83, 17% of studies). ConclusionsBased on our findings, we suggest four actionable recommendations for future studies that will help to advance the implementation of sDHTs: (1) consider an in-depth assessment of technology usability beyond user satisfaction and ease of use, (2) expand recruitment to include important user groups such as clinicians and care partners, (3) report the rationale for key study design considerations including the sample size, and (4) provide rich descriptive statistics regarding the study sample to allow a complete understanding of generalizability to other patient populations and contexts of use.

Background: Digital measures offer an unparalleled opportunity to create a more holistic picture of how people who are patients behave in their real-world environments, thereby establishing a better connection between patients, caregivers, and the clinical evidence used to drive drug development and disease management. Reaching this vision will require achieving a new level of co-creation between the stakeholders who design, develop, use, and make decisions using evidence from digital measures. Summary: In September 2022, the second in a series of meetings hosted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium, and sponsored by Wellcome Trust, entitled “Reverse Engineering of Digital Measures,” was held in Zurich, Switzerland, with a broad range of stakeholders sharing their experience across four case studies to examine how patient centricity is essential in shaping development and validation of digital evidence generation tools. Key Messages: In this paper, we discuss progress and the remaining barriers to widespread use of digital measures for evidence generation in clinical development and care delivery. We also present key discussion points and takeaways in order to continue discourse and provide a basis for dissemination and outreach to the wider community and other stakeholders. The work presented here shows us a blueprint for how and why the patient voice can be thoughtfully integrated into digital measure development and that continued multistakeholder engagement is critical for further progress.

Background: Digital health technologies are attracting attention as novel tools for data collection in clinical research. They present alternative methods compared to in-clinic data collection, which often yields snapshots of the participants’ physiology, behavior, and function that may be prone to biases and artifacts, e.g., white coat hypertension, and not representative of the data in free-living conditions. Modern digital health technologies equipped with multi-modal sensors combine different data streams to derive comprehensive endpoints that are important to study participants and are clinically meaningful. Used for data collection in clinical trials, they can be deployed as provisioned products where technology is given at study start or in a bring your own “device” (BYOD) manner where participants use their technologies to generate study data. Summary: The BYOD option has the potential to be more user-friendly, allowing participants to use technologies that they are familiar with, ensuring better participant compliance, and potentially reducing the bias that comes with introducing new technologies. However, this approach presents different technical, operational, regulatory, and ethical challenges to study teams. For example, BYOD data can be more heterogeneous, and recruiting historically underrepresented populations with limited access to technology and the internet can be challenging. Despite the rapid increase in digital health technologies for clinical and healthcare research, BYOD use in clinical trials is limited, and regulatory guidance is still evolving. Key Messages: We offer considerations for academic researchers, drug developers, and patient advocacy organizations on the design and deployment of BYOD models in clinical research. These considerations address: (1) early identification and engagement with internal and external stakeholders; (2) study design including informed consent and recruitment strategies; (3) outcome, endpoint, and technology selection; (4) data management including compliance and data monitoring; (5) statistical considerations to meet regulatory requirements. We believe that this article acts as a primer, providing insights into study design and operational requirements to ensure the successful implementation of BYOD clinical studies.