Using Real-world Data for Decision Support: Recommendations from a Primary Care Provider Survey.

INTRODUCTION: The use of data from wearable sensors, smartphones, and apps holds promise as a clinical decision-making tool in health and mental health in primary care medicine. The aim of this study was to determine provider perspectives about the utility of these data for building digitally based decision-making tools. METHODS: This mixed quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of primary-care clinicians at Kaiser Permanente Northwest was conducted between April and July 2019 online via Institute for Translational Health Sciences' Research Electronic Data Capture. Study outcomes were 1) attitudes toward digital data, 2) willingness to use digital data to support clinical decision making, and 3) concerns and recommendations about implementing a digital tool for clinical decision making. RESULTS: This sample of 131 clinicians was largely white (n = 98) female (n = 91) physicians (n = 86). Although respondents (75.7%, n = 87) had a positive attitude toward using digital tools in their practice, 88 respondents (67.3%) voiced concerns about the possible lack of clinical utility, suspected difficulty in integration with clinical workflows, and worried about the potential burden placed on patients. Participants indicated that the accuracy of the data in detecting the need for treatment adjustments would need to be high and the tool should be clinically tested. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers find value in collecting real-world patient data to assist in clinical decision making, provided such information does not interfere with provider workflow or impose undue burden on patients. In addition, digital tools will need to demonstrate high accuracy, be able to integrate into current clinical workflows, and maintain the privacy and security of patients' data.

Understanding Psychological Distress and Protective Factors Amongst Older Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the emotional distress and loneliness during COVID-19 and the roles of resiliency and activities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional national survey. SETTING: Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) and Prolific Research Platforms. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred and one U.S. dwelling English-speaking adults 60 years old and older. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed an online survey with the PHQ-9; GAD-7; Short Health Anxiety Inventory; 3-item UCLA Loneliness scale; PROMIS measures of global health, instrumental, and emotional support; 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; and COVID-19 needs assessment. RESULTS: Across the sample 13% reported moderate depressive symptoms, 9% reported moderate anxiety symptoms, and 26% endorsed being "lonely." The emotionally distressed group endorsed more loneliness, lower resiliency, less physical exercise, and worse physical health. The low Socio-Economic Status group endorsed less loneliness, less likely to engage in physical exercise and worse physical health.The lonely group endorsed less resilience, less physical exercise, and worse physical health. A multiple logistic regression found that resilience, socioeconomic status, and physical health were significant predictors of loneliness, whereas global health was the best predictor of emotional distress. CONCLUSIONS: Even after prolonged social distancing, older adults in this study did not report greater psychological distress compared to earlier studies of older adults during COVID-19. Older adults with lower SES, worse physical health, and less resiliency, were more likely to report more loneliness. It is this group that should be the focus of intervention.

Understanding Participant Needs for Engagement and Attitudes towards Passive Sensing in Remote Digital Health Studies.

Digital psychiatry is a rapidly growing area of research. Mobile assessment, including passive sensing, could improve research into human behavior and may afford opportunities for rapid treatment delivery. However, retention is poor in remote studies of depressed populations in which frequent assessment and passive monitoring are required. To improve engagement and understanding participant needs overall, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 people representative of a depressed population in a major metropolitan area. These interviews elicited feedback on strategies for long-term remote research engagement and attitudes towards passive data collection. Our results found participants were uncomfortable sharing vocal samples, need researchers to take a more active role in supporting their understanding of passive data collection, and wanted more transparency on how data were to be used in research. Despite these findings, participants trusted researchers with the collection of passive data. They further indicated that long term study retention could be improved with feedback and return of information based on the collected data. We suggest that researchers consider a more educational consent process, giving participants a choice about the types of data they share in the design of digital health apps, and consider supporting feedback in the design to improve engagement.

Contemporary Views of Research Participant Willingness to Participate and Share Digital Data in Biomedical Research.

Importance: Using social media to recruit participants is a common and cost-effective practice. Willingness to participate (WTP) in biomedical research is a function of trust in the scientific team, which is closely tied to the source of funding and institutional connections. Objective: To determine whether WTP and willingness to share social media data are associated with the type of research team and online recruitment platform. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods longitudinal survey and qualitative study was conducted over 2 points (T1 and T2) using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform. Participants were US adults aged 18 years or older who use at least 1 social media platform. Recruitment was stratified to match race/ethnicity proportions of the 2010 US Census. The volunteer sample consisted of 914 participants at T1, and 655 participants completed the follow-up survey 5 months later (T2). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were (1) past experience with online research and sharing social media data for research; (2) WTP in research advertised online; (3) WTP in a study sponsored by a pharmaceutical company, a university, or a federal agency; and (4) willingness to share social media data. Opinions were solicited regarding the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation statute, which came into effect between T1 and T2. Results: Of 914 participants completing the first survey (T1), 604 (66.1%) were aged 18 to 39 years and 494 (54.0%) were female. Of these, 655 participants (71.7%) responded at T2. While 680 participants (74.4%) indicated WTP in biomedical research, only 454 (49.3%) were willing to share their social media data. Participants were significantly less likely to participate in federally sponsored (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.64; P < .001) or pharmaceutical company (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.53-0.66; P < .001) research than university-led studies. They were also less likely to share their social medial data for federal (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.72; P < .001) or pharmaceutical company (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.44-0.56; P < .001) research compared with academic studies. Willingness to participate in pharmaceutical company-led research decreased 11.89% from T1 to T2 (OR for T2, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54-0.77; P < .001). Reasons for WTP were interest in furthering science, financial incentives, trust in the organization, and data security. While 63.0% of respondents reported seeing new privacy policy emails related to the General Data Protection Regulation law, only 27.1% indicated this positively influenced their WTP. Thematic analysis of responses indicated that WTP may improve with stronger data security measures. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that researchers may see reduced online research participation and data sharing, particularly for research conducted outside academia.