RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Atención a la Salud , Teléfono Inteligente , HumanosRESUMEN
The purpose of this study, based in the United States, was to evaluate knowledge gaps and barriers related to diagnosis and care of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), a rare but lethal breast cancer subtype, amongst Primary Care Providers (PCP) as they are often the first point of contact when patients notice initial symptoms. PCP participants in the Duke University Health System, federally qualified health center, corporate employee health and community practices, nearby academic medical center, Duke physician assistant and advanced practice nurse leadership program alumni were first selected in a convenience sample and for semi-structured interviews (n = 11). Based on these data, an online survey tool was developed and disseminated (n = 78) to assess salient measures of IBC diagnosis, health disparity factors, referral and care coordination practices, COVID-19 impact, and continuing medical education (CME). PCP reported access to care and knowledge gaps in symptom recognition (mean = 3.3, range 1-7) as major barriers. Only 31 % reported ever suspecting IBC in a patient. PCP (n = 49) responded being challenged with referral delays in diagnostic imaging. Additionally, since the COVID-19 pandemic started, 63 % reported breast cancer referral delays, and 33 % reported diagnosing less breast cancer. PCP stated interest in CME in their practice for improved diagnosis and patient care, which included online (53 %), lunch time or other in-service training (33 %), patient and provider-facing websites (32 %). Challenges communicating rare cancer information, gaps in confidence in diagnosing IBC, and timely follow-up with patients and specialists underscores the need for developing PCP educational modules to improve guideline-concordant care.
RESUMEN
Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), an understudied and lethal breast cancer, is often misdiagnosed due to its unique presentation of diffuse tumor cell clusters in the skin and dermal lymphatics. Here, we describe a window chamber technique in combination with a novel transgenic mouse model that has red fluorescent lymphatics (ProxTom RFP Nu/Nu) to simulate IBC clinicopathological hallmarks. Various breast cancer cells stably transfected to express green or red fluorescent reporters were transplanted into mice bearing dorsal skinfold window chambers. Intravital fluorescence microscopy and the in vivo imaging system (IVIS) were used to serially quantify local tumor growth, motility, length density of lymph and blood vessels, and degree of tumor cell lymphatic invasion over 0-140 h. This short-term, longitudinal imaging time frame in studying transient or dynamic events of diffuse and collectively migrating tumor cells in the local environment and quantitative analysis of the tumor area, motility, and vessel characteristics can be expanded to investigate other cancer cell types exhibiting lymphovascular invasion, a key step in metastatic dissemination. It was found that these models were able to effectively track tumor cluster migration and dissemination, which is a hallmark of IBC clinically, and was recapitulated in these mouse models.
RESUMEN
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate knowledge gaps and barriers related to diagnosis and care of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), a rare but most lethal breast cancer subtype, amongst Primary Care Providers (PCP) as they are often the first point of contact when patients notice initial symptoms. Methods: PCP participants within Duke University Health System, federally qualified health center, corporate employee health and community practices, nearby academic medical center, Duke physician assistant, and nurse leadership program alumni were first selected in a convenience sample (n=11) for semi-structured interviews (n=11). Based on these data, an online survey tool was developed and disseminated (n=78) to assess salient measures of IBC diagnosis, health disparity factors, referral and care coordination practices, COVID impact, and continued medical education (CME). Results: PCP reported access to care and knowledge gaps in symptom recognition (mean = 3.3, range 1-7) as major barriers. Only 31% reported ever suspecting IBC in a patient. PCP (n=49) responded being challenged with referral delays in diagnostic imaging. Additionally, since the COVID-19 pandemic started, 63% reported breast cancer referral delays, and 33% reported diagnosing less breast cancer. PCP stated interest in CME in their practice for improved diagnosis and patient care, which included online (53%), lunch time or other in-service training (33%), patient and provider-facing websites (32%). Conclusions: Challenges communicating rare cancer information, gaps in confidence in diagnosing IBC, and timely follow-up with patients and specialists underscores the need for developing PCP educational modules to improve guideline-concordant care.