Search

Abstract Background There is great interest in and excitement about the concept of personalized or precision medicine and, in particular, advancing this vision via various ‘big data’ efforts. While these methods are necessary, they are insufficient to achieve the full personalized medicine promise. A rigorous, complementary ‘small data’ paradigm that can function both autonomously from and in collaboration with big data is also needed. By ‘small data’ we build on Estrin’s formulation and refer to the rigorous use of data by and for a specific N-of-1 unit (i.e., a single person, clinic, hospital, healthcare system, community, city, etc.) to facilitate improved individual-level description, prediction and, ultimately, control for that specific unit. Main body The purpose of this piece is to articulate why a small data paradigm is needed and is valuable in itself, and to provide initial directions for future work that can advance study designs and data analytic techniques for a small data approach to precision health. Scientifically, the central value of a small data approach is that it can uniquely manage complex, dynamic, multi-causal, idiosyncratically manifesting phenomena, such as chronic diseases, in comparison to big data. Beyond this, a small data approach better aligns the goals of science and practice, which can result in more rapid agile learning with less data. There is also, feasibly, a unique pathway towards transportable knowledge from a small data approach, which is complementary to a big data approach. Future work should (1) further refine appropriate methods for a small data approach; (2) advance strategies for better integrating a small data approach into real-world practices; and (3) advance ways of actively integrating the strengths and limitations from both small and big data approaches into a unified scientific knowledge base that is linked via a robust science of causality. Conclusion Small data is valuable in its own right. That said, small and big data paradigms can and should be combined via a foundational science of causality. With these approaches combined, the vision of precision health can be achieved.

BackgroundPhysician burnout is a multibillion-dollar issue in the United States. Despite its prevalence, burnout is difficult to accurately measure. Institutions generally rely on periodic surveys that are subject to recall bias. SMS text message–based surveys or assessments have been used in health care and have the advantage of easy accessibility and high response rates. ObjectiveIn this pilot project, we evaluated the utility of and participant engagement with a simple, longitudinal, and SMS text message–based mental health assessment system for physician-trainees at the study institution. The goal of the SMS text message–based assessment system was to track stress, burnout, empathy, engagement, and work satisfaction levels faced by users in their normal working conditions. MethodsThree SMS text message-based questions per week for 5 weeks were sent to each participant. All data received were deidentified. Additionally, each participant had a deidentified personal web page to follow their scores as well as the aggregated scores of all participants over time. A 13-question optional survey was sent at the conclusion of the study to evaluate the usability of the platform. Descriptive statistics were performed. ResultsIn all, 81 participants were recruited and answered at least six (mean 14; median 14; range 6-16) questions for a total of 1113 responses. Overall, 10 (17%) out of 59 participants responded “Yes” to having experienced a traumatic experience during the study period. Only 3 participants ever answered being “Not at all satisfied” with their job. The highest number of responses indicating that participants were stressed or burnt out came on day 25 in the 34-day study period. There were mixed levels of concern for the privacy of responses. No substantial correlations were noted between responses and having experienced a traumatic experience during the study period. Furthermore, 12 participants responded to the optional feedback survey, and all either agreed or strongly agreed that the SMS text message–based assessment system was easy to use and the number of texts received was reasonable. None of the 12 respondents indicated that using the SMS text message–based assessment system caused stress. ConclusionsResponses demonstrated that SMS text message–based mental health assessments are potentially useful for recording physician-trainee mental health levels in real time with minimal burden, but further study of SMS text message–based mental health assessments should address limitations such as improving response rates and clarifying participants’ sense of privacy when using the SMS text message–based assessment system. The findings of this pilot study can inform the development of institution-wide tools for assessing physician burnout and protecting physicians from occupational stress.

BackgroundAlthough it is widely recognized that physical activity is an important determinant of health, assessing this complex behavior is a considerable challenge. ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine, quantify, and report the current state of evidence for the validity of energy expenditure, heart rate, and steps measured by recent combined-sensing Fitbits. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and Bland-Altman meta-analysis of validation studies of combined-sensing Fitbits against reference measures of energy expenditure, heart rate, and steps. ResultsA total of 52 studies were included in the systematic review. Among the 52 studies, 41 (79%) were included in the meta-analysis, representing 203 individual comparisons between Fitbit devices and a criterion measure (ie, n=117, 57.6% for heart rate; n=49, 24.1% for energy expenditure; and n=37, 18.2% for steps). Overall, most authors of the included studies concluded that recent Fitbit models underestimate heart rate, energy expenditure, and steps compared with criterion measures. These independent conclusions aligned with the results of the pooled meta-analyses showing an average underestimation of −2.99 beats per minute (k comparison=74), −2.77 kcal per minute (k comparison=29), and −3.11 steps per minute (k comparison=19), respectively, of the Fitbit compared with the criterion measure (results obtained after removing the high risk of bias studies; population limit of agreements for heart rate, energy expenditure, and steps: −23.99 to 18.01, −12.75 to 7.41, and −13.07 to 6.86, respectively). ConclusionsFitbit devices are likely to underestimate heart rate, energy expenditure, and steps. The estimation of these measurements varied by the quality of the study, age of the participants, type of activities, and the model of Fitbit. The qualitative conclusions of most studies aligned with the results of the meta-analysis. Although the expected level of accuracy might vary from one context to another, this underestimation can be acceptable, on average, for steps and heart rate. However, the measurement of energy expenditure may be inaccurate for some research purposes.

Digital technologies offer unique opportunities for health research. For example, Twitter posts can support public health surveillance to identify outbreaks (eg, influenza and COVID-19), and a wearable fitness tracker can provide real-time data collection to assess the effectiveness of a behavior change intervention. With these opportunities, it is necessary to consider the potential risks and benefits to research participants when using digital tools or strategies. Researchers need to be involved in the risk assessment process, as many tools in the marketplace (eg, wellness apps, fitness sensors) are underregulated. However, there is little guidance to assist researchers and institutional review boards in their evaluation of digital tools for research purposes. To address this gap, the Digital Health Checklist for Researchers (DHC-R) was developed as a decision support tool. A participatory research approach involving a group of behavioral scientists was used to inform DHC-R development. Scientists beta-tested the checklist by retrospectively evaluating the technologies they had chosen for use in their research. This paper describes the lessons learned because of their involvement in the beta-testing process and concludes with recommendations for how the DHC-R could be useful for a variety of digital health stakeholders. Recommendations focus on future research and policy development to support research ethics, including the development of best practices to advance safe and responsible digital health research.