The Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO) study: Lessons learned about management and patient enrollment in a large, pragmatic, patient-centered trial.

BACKGROUND: The growth of patient and public involvement in clinical research highlights the paucity of literature on operational practices that ensure the success of large, patient-centered outcomes trials. The authors' objective was to identify tools launched by the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO) study team to determine their effectiveness in maximizing patient enrollment in this observational, pragmatic trial. METHODS: The primary outcomes for this study were patient screening and enrollment across 36 CISTO study sites. The operational strategies included CISTOquestion email correspondence and All Sites Meetings, specifically poll performance data from meetings, and a nonanonymized feedback survey about the CISTO study's management practices. Effectiveness was measured using correlation analysis with patient cohort data, including screenings, enrollments, post-hoc exclusions, and the post-hoc exclusion rate. RESULTS: Average screenings and enrollment rose after the implementation of CISTOquestion in April 2021, with the average number of screenings rising from 7.42 to 26.8 patients per month and enrollment rising from 3.76 to 16 patients per month. Use of CISTOquestion was correlated strongly with increased patient screenings and enrollment across all study sites. Eighty-three percent of sites with above-average post-hoc exclusion rates (≥0.092) sent below the average number of CISTOquestion inquiries. Poll performance and survey data revealed that all survey respondents who used CISTOquestion found that it was a valuable and accessible resource. CONCLUSIONS: Of the several operational tools implemented within the CISTO study that aimed to improve patient enrollment, CISTOquestion, a centralized email for addressing eligibility questions, was most beneficial to overall patient accrual.

Protocol of the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options (CISTO) study: a pragmatic, prospective multicenter observational cohort study of recurrent high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer poses a significant public health burden, with high recurrence and progression rates in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Current treatment options include bladder-sparing therapies (BST) and radical cystectomy, both with associated risks and benefits. However, evidence supporting optimal management decisions for patients with recurrent high-grade NMIBC remains limited, leading to uncertainty for patients and clinicians. The CISTO (Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options) Study aims to address this critical knowledge gap by comparing outcomes between patients undergoing BST and radical cystectomy. METHODS: The CISTO Study is a pragmatic, prospective observational cohort trial across 36 academic and community urology practices in the US. The study will enroll 572 patients with a diagnosis of recurrent high-grade NMIBC who select management with either BST or radical cystectomy. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (QOL) at 12 months as measured with the EORTC-QLQ-C30. Secondary outcomes include bladder cancer-specific QOL, progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and financial toxicity. The study will also assess patient preferences for treatment outcomes. Statistical analyses will employ targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) to address treatment selection bias and confounding by indication. DISCUSSION: The CISTO Study is powered to detect clinically important differences in QOL and cancer-specific survival between the two treatment approaches. By including a diverse patient population, the study also aims to assess outcomes across the following patient characteristics: age, gender, race, burden of comorbid health conditions, cancer severity, caregiver status, social determinants of health, and rurality. Treatment outcomes may also vary by patient preferences, health literacy, and baseline QOL. The CISTO Study will fill a crucial evidence gap in the management of recurrent high-grade NMIBC, providing evidence-based guidance for patients and clinicians in choosing between BST and radical cystectomy. The CISTO study will provide an evidence-based approach to identifying the right treatment for the right patient at the right time in the challenging clinical setting of recurrent high-grade NMIBC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03933826. Registered on May 1, 2019.

Patient and public involvement in the design and conduct of a large, pragmatic observational trial to investigate recurrent, high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches to research design are particularly important for diseases with complex treatment decision-making, such as recurrent, high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The objective of this article is to describe patient and public involvement (PPI) in designing a large, pragmatic observational trial and to articulate barriers, challenges, and lessons learned for future design. METHODS: Through multistakeholder involvement, a large, pragmatic observational trial was designed to investigate the outcomes of high-risk, recurrent NMIBC, and it was titled Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO). CISTO's design used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 reporting checklist for PPI and built on prior engagement infrastructure in partnership with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network. RESULTS: CISTO's PPI began with research prioritization to identify the highest priority questions facing patients with NMIBC. A pragmatic observational study design was selected and refined through stakeholder input. PPI included patients and caregivers organized into an advocate advisory board and clinicians, researchers, payers, and industry representatives organized into an external advisory board. An engagement plan was created to define the stages of PPI and the level and nature of the involvement of each group. PPI was measured quantitatively and qualitatively through evaluation surveys and iterative feedback from board members, with changes made for continuous improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Through intentional PPI, CISTO aims to produce pragmatic and generalizable results that will allow patients to make informed decisions for recurrent, high-risk NMIBC based on their personal experiences. LAY SUMMARY: Involving patients and other stakeholders in research ensures that it reflects the outcomes that matter most to them. This is especially important when research focuses on conditions in which patients face difficult decisions about treatment options. This article describes the key role that stakeholders played in shaping the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO) study. It compares treatments for recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer and describes how stakeholders were engaged to design and develop the study and the practices that supported their involvement.

Isolating the Drivers of Racial Inequities in Prostate Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Black individuals in the United States are less likely than White individuals to receive curative therapies despite a 2-fold higher risk of prostate cancer death. While research has described treatment inequities, few studies have investigated underlying causes. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 40,137 Medicare beneficiaries (66 and older) linked to the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry who had clinically significant, non-metastatic (cT1-4N0M0, grade group 2-5) prostate cancer (diagnosed 2010-2015). Using the Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, we assessed the contributions of patient health and health care delivery on the racial difference in localized prostate cancer treatments (radical prostatectomy or radiation). Patient health consisted of comorbid diagnoses, tumor characteristics, SEER site, diagnosis year, and age. Health care delivery was captured as a prediction model with these health variables as predictors of treatment, reflecting current treatment patterns. RESULTS: A total of 72.1% and 78.6% of Black and White patients received definitive treatment, respectively, a difference of 6.5 percentage points. An estimated 15% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6-24] of this treatment difference was explained by measured differences in patient health, leaving the remaining estimated 85% (95% CI: 74-94) attributable to a potentially broad range of health care delivery factors. Limitations included insufficient data to explore how specific health care delivery factors, including structural racism and social determinants, impact differential treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the inadequacy of patient health differences as an explanation of the treatment inequity. IMPACT: Investing in studies and interventions that support equitable health care delivery for Black individuals with prostate cancer will contribute to improved outcomes.

Prostate cancer screening in African American men: a review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in African American men, yet prostate cancer screening regimens in this group are poorly guided by existing evidence, given underrepresentation of African American men in prostate cancer screening trials. It is critical to optimize prostate cancer screening and early detection in this high-risk group because underdiagnosis may lead to later-stage cancers at diagnosis and higher mortality while overdiagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment. METHODS: We performed a review of the literature related to prostate cancer screening and early detection specific to African American men to summarize the existing evidence available to guide health-care practice. RESULTS: Limited evidence from observational and modeling studies suggests that African American men should be screened for prostate cancer. Consideration should be given to initiating screening of African American men at younger ages (eg, 45-50 years) and at more frequent intervals relative to other racial groups in the United States. Screening intervals can be optimized by using a baseline prostate-specific antigen measurement in midlife. Finally, no evidence has indicated that African American men would benefit from screening beyond 75 years of age; in fact, this group may experience higher rates of overdiagnosis at older ages. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for prostate cancer screening in African American men is limited by the lack of large, randomized studies. Our literature search supported the need for African American men to be screened for prostate cancer, for initiating screening at younger ages (45-50 years), and perhaps screening at more frequent intervals relative to men of other racial groups in the United States.

Inequities in Definitive Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer Among Those With Clinically Significant Mental Health Disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with mental health disorders are at risk for receiving inequitable cancer treatment, likely resulting from various structural, social, and health-related factors. This study aims to assess the relationship between mental health disorders and the use of definitive treatment in a population-based cohort of those with localized, clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study analysis in SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare (2004-2015). History of a mental health disorder was defined as presence of specific ICD (International Classification of Diseases)-9 or ICD-10 diagnostic codes in the 2 years preceding cancer diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 testing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between mental health disorders and definitive treatment utilization (defined as surgery or radiation). RESULTS: Of 101,042 individuals with prostate cancer, 7,945 (7.8%) had a diagnosis of a mental health disorder. They were more likely to be unpartnered, have a lower socioeconomic status, and less likely to receive definitive treatment (61.8% vs 68.2%, P < .001). Definitive treatment rates were >66%, 62.8%, 60.3%, 58.2%, 54.3%, and 48.1% for post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, and schizophrenia, respectively. After adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, marital status and socioeconomic status, history of a mental health disorder was associated with decreased odds of receiving definitive treatment (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with mental health disorders and prostate cancer represent a vulnerable population; careful attention to clinical and social needs is required to support appropriate use of beneficial treatments.

Determining clinical perspectives and strategies for improving enrollment of minoritized communities in prostate cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Black men and other minoritized populations have represented 4-5% or less of participants in most practice-informing clinical trials. This study sought to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of clinicians around equity and inclusion in prostate cancer clinical trial initiatives in the United States. METHODS: An anonymous, web-based questionnaire was administered via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) with questions focused on inclusivity of minoritized populations with respect to race and ethnicity in prostate cancer clinical trials research. The survey link was distributed across the United States via several professional organizations, prostate cancer groups, and social media. Responses were analyzed both quantitatively (descriptive statistics) and qualitatively (thematic analysis). RESULTS: Overall, 131 respondents completed the survey (70% self-identified as White, 17% as Asian, and 6% as Black). Most respondents practiced in an urban setting (89%). Of those who engaged in outreach with minoritized communities during the trial design process, 69% observed improved enrollment of minoritized populations. However, 18% of respondents noted that outreach alone does not overcome existing structural barriers to participation in clinical trials. Thematic analysis identified four key areas to address for improving equity: structural, health system, trial-/study-specific, and relationship-/engagement-related factors. CONCLUSION: Study participants demonstrated a knowledge of the importance of improving equity in prostate cancer clinical trials research. Designing trials that reduce issues associated with access and improving community outreach were emphasized as key focus areas for reducing health disparities in prostate cancer clinical trials research.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on the Influence of Patient Values, Health Priorities, and Preferences on Clinical Decision-Making for Complex Patients with Multimorbidity: A Qualitative Study.

Introduction: The prevalence of patients with multimorbidity (ie, multiple chronic conditions) is increasing. Clinical decision-making guided by patients' values, health priorities and goals, and treatment preferences is particularly important in the context of interacting diseases and psychosocial needs. Physicians face challenges incorporating patient perspectives into care plans. We examined primary care physician (PCP) views on the influence of patients' values, health priorities and goals, and preferences on clinical decisions for patients with multimorbidity and increased psychosocial complexity. Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 23 PCPs within patient-centered medical home teams in a nationally integrated health system in the United States between May and July 2020. Data were analyzed via thematic analysis with deductive and inductive coding. Results: Three major themes emerged: 1. Patient personal values were rarely explicitly discussed in routine clinical encounters but informed more commonly discussed concepts of patient priorities, goals, and preferences; 2. Patient values, health priorities and goals, and preferences were sources of divergent views about care plans between healthcare teams, patients, and families; 3. Physicians used explicit strategies to communicate and negotiate about patient values, health priorities and goals, and preferences when developing care plans, including trust-building; devoting extra effort to individualizing care; connecting patient values to healthcare recommendations; deliberate elicitation and acknowledgement of patient concerns; providing "space" for patient perspectives; incorporating family into care planning; pairing physician to patient priorities; and collaborative teamwork. Conclusion: Primary care physicians perceive patient values, health priorities and goals, and preferences as influential during clinical decision-making for complex patients with multimorbidity. Participants used concrete strategies to negotiate alignment of these aspects when physician-patient divergence occurred. While rarely discussed directly in clinical encounters, personal values affected patient health priorities, goals, and preferences during care planning, suggesting a clinical role for more deliberate elicitation and discussion of patient values for this population.

Lived experiences of people with or at risk for aortic dissection: A qualitative assessment.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-changing event that is often accompanied by a loss of normal quality of life. Survivors of AD go on to have a chronic disease that requires lifestyle modification, medical management, and surgical repair of the aorta. Clinical care includes multiple disciplines, health care settings, and often different geographic locations. This qualitative assessment examined the experiences of people with and at risk for AD. The following four themes emerged: "unnecessary drama" at diagnosis, unmet needs for information and support, the burden of self-advocacy and care coordination, and living with unaddressed mental health impacts. Our findings inform recommendations to advance patient-centered care delivery for individuals with and at risk for AD, improving communication of timely and relevant information, and an approach to care that acknowledges the whole person in clinical decision making.

The Aortic Dissection Collaborative: Methods for building capacity for patient-centered outcomes research in the aortic dissection community.

Understanding what matters most to patients can help guide research in a direction that is best situated to provide evidence that is responsive to their core concerns. This can better inform the treatment decision-making process for patients and their physicians. The Aortic Dissection (AD) Collaborative built a collaborative AD research infrastructure involving patients and other stakeholders to facilitate patient-centered outcomes research training, support, and networking among those affected by AD. Two surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and October 2020 to gather information from people with and at risk for AD and their family members to better understand their experiences and needs. Discussion of survey and interview results were then articulated as seven key topics for future research to meet the needs of the AD community. Working groups were assembled to address each of the key topics. The groups conducted landscape reviews that were focused on providing guidance for future research that directly addresses the needs identified by the AD community. Recommendations for future research generated by the working groups were compiled by the Aortic Dissection Collaborative. From these recommendations, the Aortic Dissection Collaborative advisors and stakeholders identified high-priority research questions. The research questions form the basis for a third survey, disseminated to the Virtual Research Network between November 2021 and February 2022. Final analysis of the survey will identify top ranked research questions and assess willingness to participate. These results will inform the development of future patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research proposals.

A mixed method approach to understanding the impact of COVID-19 on patients with or at risk for aortic dissection.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-threatening rare disease that occurs as a spontaneous tear in the wall of the aorta. Survivors of AD go on to have a chronic disease process that requires lifelong follow-up and management. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems and impacted practice in the United States, the effects of these impacts on people living with or at risk for AD is not well understood. This mixed methods project examined the experiences of people in the AD community during the COVID-19 pandemic between March and October 2020. Results reveal that the AD community lacked clear guidance on the role aortic health status plays in COVID-19 risk and experienced significant disruptions in aortic healthcare. At the same time, the new expansion in access to medical care with telehealth conferred unforeseen benefits in the form of reduced barriers for access to specialized aortic health care.

"Help me figure this out": Qualitative explorations of patient experiences with cancer pathology reports.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with a new cancer diagnosis, the pathology report is a critical tool to support diagnosis and decision-making, yet they are designed for providers, not patients. We sought to qualitatively explore patients' experiences receiving and interpreting pathology reports for breast and colorectal cancers. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups with patients (n = 23) who had received diagnostic or surgical pathology reports for breast cancer, colorectal cancer or polypectomy. Focus groups discussed patients' experiences with pathology reports and recommendations for improving the patient-centeredness of report design. Focus groups were transcribed and thematic analysis was used to explore patient perspectives. RESULTS: Participants described experiences with pathology reports that were fraught with confusion and variability. Three central themes were identified related to how 1) the experience receiving the pathology report, 2) the pathology report language, and 3) the format of pathology reports all influence patient understanding and ability to engage in treatment decision-making. CONCLUSION: Due to their complex medical language and challenging framing, traditional pathology reports can contribute to the confusion and uncertainty patients experience as they navigate a new cancer diagnosis.

StayHome: A FHIR-Native Mobile COVID-19 Symptom Tracker and Public Health Reporting Tool.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold and states experience the impacts of reopened economies, it is critical to efficiently manage new outbreaks through widespread testing and monitoring of both new and possible cases. Existing labor-intensive public health workflows may benefit from information collection directly from individuals through patient-reported outcomes (PROs) systems. Our objective was to develop a reusable, mobile-friendly application for collecting PROs and experiences to support COVID-19 symptom self-monitoring and data sharing with appropriate public health agencies, using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) for interoperability. We conducted a needs assessment and designed and developed StayHome, a mobile PRO administration tool. FHIR serves as the primary data model and driver of business logic. Keycloak, AWS, Docker, and other technologies were used for deployment. Several FHIR modules were used to create a novel "FHIR-native" application design. By leveraging FHIR to shape not only the interface strategy but also the information architecture of the application, StayHome enables the consistent standards-based representation of data and reduces the barrier to integration with public health information systems. FHIR supported rapid application development by providing a domain-appropriate data model and tooling. FHIR modules and implementation guides were referenced in design and implementation. However, there are gaps in the FHIR specification which must be recognized and addressed appropriately. StayHome is live and accessible to the public at https://stayhome.app. The code and resources required to build and deploy the application are available from https://github.com/uwcirg/stayhome-project.

A learning health systems approach to integrating electronic patient-reported outcomes across the health care organization.

INTRODUCTION: Foundational to a learning health system (LHS) is the presence of a data infrastructure that can support continuous learning and improve patient outcomes. To advance their capacity to drive patient-centered care, health systems are increasingly looking to expand the electronic capture of patient data, such as electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures. Yet ePROs bring unique considerations around workflow, measurement, and technology that health systems may not be poised to navigate. We report on our effort to develop generalizable learnings that can support the integration of ePROs into clinical practice within an LHS framework. METHODS: Guided by action research methodology, we engaged in iterative cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting around ePRO use with two primary goals: (1) mobilize an ePRO community of practice to facilitate knowledge sharing, and (2) establish guidelines for ePRO use in the context of LHS practice. Multiple, emergent data collection activities generated generalizable guidelines that document the tangible best practices for ePRO use in clinical care. We organized guidelines around thematic areas that reflect LHS structures and stakeholders. RESULTS: Three core thematic areas (and 24 guidelines) emerged. The theme of governance reflects the importance of leadership, knowledge management, and facilitating organizational learning around best practice models for ePRO use. The theme of integration considers the intersection of workflow, technology, and human factors for ePROs across areas of care delivery. Lastly, the theme of reporting reflects critical considerations for curating data and information, designing system functions and interactions, and presentation of ePRO data to support the translation of knowledge to action. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines produced from this work highlight the complex, multidisciplinary nature of implementing change within LHS contexts, and the value of action research approaches to enable rapid, iterative learning that leverages the knowledge and experience of communities of practice.

Use of patient-generated health data across healthcare settings: implications for health systems.

OBJECTIVE: The growing prevalence of chronic conditions requiring changes in lifestyle and at-home self-management has increased interest in and need for supplementing clinic visits with data generated by patients outside the clinic. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) support the ability to diagnose and manage chronic conditions, to improve health outcomes, and have the potential to facilitate more "connected health" between patients and their care teams; however, health systems have been slow to adopt PGHD use in clinical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed current and potential users of PGHD to catalog how PGHD is integrated into clinical care at an academic health center. The survey included questions about data type, method of collection, and clinical uses of PGHD. Current users were asked to provide detailed case studies of PGHD use in research and care delivery. RESULTS: Thirty-one respondents completed the survey. Seventeen individuals contributed detailed case studies of PGHD use across diverse areas of care, including behavioral health, metabolic and gastrointestinal conditions, musculoskeletal/progressive functional conditions, cognitive symptoms, and pain management. Sensor devices and mobile technologies were the most commonly reported platforms for collection. Clinicians and researchers involved in PGHD use cited the potential for PGHD to enhance care delivery and outcomes, but also indicated substantial barriers to more widespread PGHD adoption across healthcare systems. CONCLUSION: The results of our survey illustrate how PGHD is used in targeted areas of one healthcare system and provide meaningful insights that can guide health systems in supporting the widespread use of PGHD in care delivery.

Improving the impact of clinical documentation through patient-driven co-design: experiences with cancer pathology reports.

OBJECTIVE: With the unprecedented rise of patient access to clinical documentation through electronic health records, there is a need for health systems to understand best practices for redesigning clinical documentation to support patient needs. This study used an experience-based co-design approach to inform the redesign of cancer pathology reports to improve their patient-centeredness and impact on patient engagement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple methods for data collection and stakeholder engagement were used, including Delphi prioritisation with breast and colorectal cancer experts (n=78) and focus groups with patients with cancer (n=23) in the Seattle area. Iterative rounds of consensus generation and reflection were used to elicit themes and design recommendations for the development of patient-centred pathology reports on cancer care. RESULTS: Although each cancer type had nuanced elements to consider, common design requirements emerged around two key themes: (1) clinical documentation language should be framed in a way that informs and engages patients, and (2) clinical documentation format should be leveraged to enhance readability and information flow. Study activities illuminated detailed recommendations to improve the patient-centeredness of pathology reports based on patients' and clinicians' lived experience. DISCUSSION: The design requirements that emerged from this study provide a framework that can guide the rapid development of patient-centred pathology reports for all cancer types. Even further, health systems can replicate these methods to guide experience-based co-design of clinical documentation for contexts beyond cancer care. CONCLUSION: This work offers practice-based learnings that can more effectively guide health systems in their clinical documentation redesign efforts.

mHealth and patient generated health data: stakeholder perspectives on opportunities and barriers for transforming healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices, mobile health apps, and geolocation technologies place the ability to track, monitor and report data in the individuals' hands - or on their bodies. These innovations create an opportunity for "connected health," where individuals collect data outside of the healthcare encounter and report it to care providers. Collection of such patient-generated health data (PGHD) has the potential to impact the delivery of healthcare through remote monitoring, and by allowing patients and healthcare teams to provide targeted and efficient care that aligns with the health status of individual patients. METHODS: To understand the value and barriers associated with clinical integration of PGHD we engaged a range of stakeholders, examining their perspectives and experiences of PGHD use. We conducted open-ended interviews with healthcare consumers (patients and care partners), healthcare providers, and healthcare administrators. Open recruitment and purposive sampling were utilized to identify participants that represented the breadth of PGHD use in research and clinical care. Interview guides focused on the value and barriers of PGHD use. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for emergent themes. RESULTS: Themes emerged around the value of PGHD to support care decisions and improve patient-provider communication and engagement, and the promise of applying PGHD to formal care pathways and measurement-based care. Significant barriers included data validity and actionability, and the burden of integrating PGHD into existing care processes. Interviews highlighted areas for future research to better understand how PGHD can advance care transformation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide rich context for understanding the experiences and needs of the individuals who interface with PGHD. Translating advances in technology and data tracking into successful clinical implementation requires understanding how stakeholders conceptualize and make use of PGHD, the potential value that PGHD can add to care, and the challenges that may limit PGHD's promise. Our results illustrate the value and challenges associated with health-system implementation of PGHD. Efforts to increase the scale and spread of PGHD will benefit from an approach that addresses the value and challenges PGHD brings to clinical care.

A Stakeholder-Driven Framework for Evaluating Surgical Site Infection Surveillance Technologies.

Background: Patients increasingly use mobile devices to send text messages and photographic data to surgeons. There is potential to harness this patient-generated health data (PGHD) for clinical and public health surveillance of surgical site infection (SSI). Leveraging PGHD collected via remote monitoring in the post-operative period has the potential to produce important benefits for patients, surgeons, care teams, and infection surveillance and prevention. Methods: We conducted a health technology assessment (HTA), drawing heavily on stakeholder engagement to better understand current and potential uses of PGHD in post-operative care. Stakeholder engagement activities included assembling an advisory board composed of stakeholder experts, interviewing key informants, and seeking out stakeholder guidance to synthesize evidence from interviews, literature review, and technical app review in order to develop recommendations on the use of PGHD in SSI surveillance. Results: We conducted a review of the published literature, a technical/market scan of available apps for capturing post-operative PGHD, and two rounds of key informant interviews with stakeholders. In addition, we held a day-long workshop to solicit stakeholder feedback on initial findings of the project and to guide additional work. These activities culminated in an HTA report that provides guidance and recommendations on the use of PGHD in SSI surveillance, including practice, research, and public health surveillance, and identifies open issues on post-operative use of PGHD for which additional evidence and experience are needed to optimize application of those data for clinical and public health purposes. Conclusion: Stakeholders, individuals with direct experience, or interest in a given topic are critical to the HTA process. They provide insight to guide the work conducted, ensure that the topics addressed are relevant and important, and that products of the work are accessible and meaningful to the individuals who will be most impacted.

Engaging Patients in Co-Design of Mobile Health Tools for Surgical Site Infection Surveillance: Implications for Research and Implementation.

Background: As the use of patient-owned devices, including smartphones and tablets, to manage day-to-day activities grows, so does healthcare industry's interest to better leverage technology to engage patients. For surgical care, a unique opportunity exists to capture patient-generated health data (PGHD) including photographs. As part of a broader initiative to evaluate PGHD for surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance, we sought evidence regarding patient involvement and experience with PGHD for SSI monitoring and surveillance. Methods: Through a scoping review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews we gathered evidence on what is currently known about patient perspectives of and experiences with mobile health (mHealth) interventions for post-operative recovery. We presented findings to and discussed with the ASSIST PGHD Stakeholder Advisory Group (PSAG) to generate priorities for further examination. Results: Our scoping review yielded 34 studies that addressed post-discharge use of PGHD for monitoring and surveillance of SSI. Of these, 16 studies addressed at least one outcome regarding patient experience; the most commonly measured outcome was patient satisfaction. Only three studies reported on patient involvement in the development of PGHD tools and interventions. We conducted interviews (n = 24) representing a range of stakeholder perspectives. Interviewees stressed the importance of patient involvement in tool and program design, noting patient involvement ensures the "work" that patients do in their daily lives to manage their health and healthcare is recognized. Discussion of evidence with the ASSIST PSAG resulted in formal recommendations for direct involvement of patients and caregivers for future work. Conclusions: While mHealth initiatives to advance post-operative management offer the ability to improve patient engagement, work is needed to ensure the patient voice is reflected. Active engagement with patients and caregivers in the development of new technology, the design of new workflows, and the conduct of research and evaluation ensures that the patient experiences and values are incorporated.