Digital Measures That Matter to Patients: A Framework to Guide the Selection and Development of Digital Measures of Health

Background: With the rise of connected sensor technologies, there are seemingly endless possibilities for new ways to measure health. These technologies offer researchers and clinicians opportunities to go beyond brief snapshots of data captured by traditional in-clinic assessments, to redefine health and disease. Given the myriad opportunities for measurement, how do research or clinical teams know what they should be measuring? Patient engagement, early and often, is paramount to thoughtfully selecting what is most important. Regulators encourage stakeholders to have a patient focus but actionable steps for continuous engagement are not well defined. Without patient-focused measurement, stakeholders risk entrenching digital versions of poor traditional assessments and proliferating low-value tools that are ineffective, burdensome, and reduce both quality and efficiency in clinical care and research. Summary: This article synthesizes and defines a sequential framework of core principles for selecting and developing measurements in research and clinical care that are meaningful for patients. We propose next steps to drive forward the science of high-quality patient engagement in support of measures of health that matter in the era of digital medicine. Key Messages: All measures of health should be meaningful, regardless of the product’s regulatory classification, type of measure, or context of use. To evaluate meaningfulness of signals derived from digital sensors, the following four-level framework is useful: Meaningful Aspect of Health, Concept of Interest, Outcome to be measured, and Endpoint (exclusive to research). Incorporating patient input is a dynamic process that requires more than a single, transactional touch point but rather should be conducted continuously throughout the measurement selection process. We recommend that developers, clinicians, and researchers reevaluate processes for more continuous patient engagement in the development, deployment, and interpretation of digital measures of health.

[1]  David Hau Update on software as a medical device (SaMD) , 2017 .

[2]  Y. Allanore,et al.  Lack of Specificity of the 6-Minute Walk Test as an Outcome Measure for Patients with Systemic Sclerosis , 2009, The Journal of Rheumatology.

[3]  Bruno Gualano,et al.  Low‐Load Resistance Training With Blood‐Flow Restriction in Relation to Muscle Function, Mass, and Functionality in Women With Rheumatoid Arthritis , 2020, Arthritis care & research.

[4]  Jennifer C. Goldsack,et al.  Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs) , 2020, npj Digital Medicine.

[5]  Karthik Dinesh,et al.  Multiple Wearable Sensors in Parkinson and Huntington Disease Individuals: A Pilot Study in Clinic and at Home , 2017, Digital Biomarkers.

[6]  Thomas J. Grabowski,et al.  Cognitive associations with comprehensive gait and static balance measures in Parkinson's disease. , 2019, Parkinsonism & related disorders.

[7]  Jennifer C. Goldsack,et al.  Use of Mobile Devices to Measure Outcomes in Clinical Research, 2010–2016: A Systematic Literature Review , 2018, Digital Biomarkers.

[8]  Jennifer C. Goldsack,et al.  Digital Medicine: A Primer on Measurement , 2019, Digital Biomarkers.

[9]  Noah Zimmerman,et al.  A systematic review of feasibility studies promoting the use of mobile technologies in clinical research , 2019, npj Digital Medicine.

[10]  David A. Rowe,et al.  Measuring free-living physical activity in COPD patients: Deriving methodology standards for clinical trials through a review of research studies. , 2016, Contemporary clinical trials.

[11]  Matthew J. Campen,et al.  Heart Failure: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease , 2005 .

[12]  Elizabeth Molsen,et al.  Clinical Outcome Assessments: Conceptual Foundation-Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment - Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. , 2015, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[13]  Andrea Coravos,et al.  Modernizing and designing evaluation frameworks for connected sensor technologies in medicine , 2020, npj Digital Medicine.

[14]  小林 和道 患者の声を新薬開発に活かす : Patient-Focused Drug Development , 2013 .

[15]  Sarah Stallings,et al.  A Multilevel Approach to Stakeholder Engagement in the Formulation of a Clinical Data Research Network , 2018, Medical care.

[16]  Max A. Little,et al.  Wearable Sensors in Huntington Disease: A Pilot Study. , 2016, Journal of Huntington's disease.

[17]  R. Beckett,et al.  Food and Drug Administration, US , 2014 .

[18]  E. Long International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research , 2012 .

[19]  Alexander Fraser,et al.  Criterion Validity of the activPAL Activity Monitor for Sedentary and Physical Activity Patterns in People Who Have Rheumatoid Arthritis , 2015, Physical Therapy.

[20]  Douglas L. Mann,et al.  Heart Failure: a Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease , 2014 .