Skip to content

Reporting Patient Generated Health Data and Patient Reported Outcomes With Health Information Technology

Engaging Disadvantaged Patients in Sharing Patient Generated Health Data and Patient Reported Outcomes Through Health Information Technology

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03386773
Enrollment
300
Registered
2017-12-29
Start date
2018-11-02
Completion date
2020-08-31
Last updated
2022-09-26

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Obesity

Keywords

patient generated health data, patient reported outcome measures, health information technology, mobile health, consumer health informatics

Brief summary

This study will assess the feasibility of using patient-centered, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) health information technology (IT) solutions to collect patient generated health data (PGHD) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from diverse, low-income disadvantaged populations. These data will then be mapped and reported in a way that will allow them to be made actionable and used to improve health care quality and delivery. The data mapping will be designed for data collection through technology such as mobile apps and wearables, and will be intended to support integration into interoperable electronic health records (EHRs), clinical information systems, and big data infrastructures.

Detailed description

Patient engagement is particularly critical to achieving good chronic disease self-management. This is especially important for disadvantaged patients, who are disproportionately affected by chronic disease. A key component of chronic disease self-management is the ability for patients to record and monitor their ongoing performance on indicator measures. While health IT solutions have been shown to improve chronic disease self-management, adoption and use of costly, specialized technologies among disadvantaged patients is lower than among higher-income populations. In contrast, COTS technologies such as mobile phones are more accessible to and widely adopted by disadvantaged patients, thus bridging the gap of the digital divide. The central research hypothesis posits that 1) low-income, disadvantaged patients both can and will provide high quality PGHD and PROs through COTS-based health IT solutions, and 2) these data can be integrated into clinical systems and used to improve health care quality and delivery. PGHD can be collected through patient interaction with COTS health IT solutions such as mobile health apps and fitness trackers. PROs can be collected via patient response to questionnaire-based PROs measures, or PROMs. These data can be transmitted to clinical information systems, integrated into clinical workflows and used by providers to improve health care quality and delivery. Using a sequential integrated mixed-methods approach, we propose to test the central hypothesis through three specific aims, as follows: Aim 1: To assess the needs and preferences of disadvantaged patients and safety net health care providers regarding the use of health IT for communicating PGHD and PROs. Aim 1 Research Questions: What specific features in COTS solutions meet the needs and preferences of disadvantaged patients for communicating PGHD and PROs to their providers? What PGHD and PROs are deemed most important by providers and patients for improving health care and health outcomes? Answering these questions will inform health IT solution selection, design, usability, and utility; assist with prioritizing PGHD and PROs collection by data element and measure type; and identify potential discrepancies between patients' and providers' perceptions of PGHD and PROs importance. Aim 2: To demonstrate the feasibility of PGHD and PROs collection through COTS health IT solutions in a patient-centered pilot intervention for weight management among disadvantaged patients. Aim 2 Hypothesis: Providing PGHD and PROs through COTS solutions will improve engagement among disadvantaged patients. Secondary outcomes include improving key health indicators (e.g., weight, physical activity) and PROMs (e.g., quality of life, mental health symptoms). Weight management is important in delaying, averting, and reducing the effects of multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. A weight management-related intervention also serves as an effective test of PGHD and PROMs collection, due to the existence of numerous COTS solutions which use different methods for tracking common data elements related to weight, physical activity, and fitness. Aim 3: To create an ontology mapping and set of interoperability resources which can be used to support integration of PGHD and PRO into clinical information systems. Aim 3 Hypothesis: PGHD and PROs can be characterized by distinct types, elements, and structures which, once described, may be modeled and mapped to existing vocabularies for health data management. In order to make PGHD and PROs actionable, these data must be integrated into clinical information systems such as electronic health records (EHRs) where it can be used by clinicians in their practice. Creating a translation by matching PGHD and PROs data elements to comparable ones in existing clinical vocabularies will provide a tool to support future data integration into the EHR. Creating a resource set which can be used with multiple EHRs will improve the generalizability and broad usability of the ontology mapping tool.

Interventions

BEHAVIORAL16-week program

16-week program where patients will receive regular health promotion messaging about (a) food, nutrition, and diet; and (b) exercise and physical activity.

BEHAVIORALPatient generated health data

Intervention patients will be asked to track patient generated health data and patient reported outcomes. PGHD elements related to weight management will be collected through a mobile health app loaded on their phones and/or through using a fitness tracker, depending on patient preference, and to share that information with the research team. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures will be collected pre-and-post-intervention. Intervention patients will also be asked to provide answers to patient-reported outcomes measures on a weekly basis.

Sponsors

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
CollaboratorFED
Denver Health and Hospital Authority
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Recruited participants will be randomized to one of two arms, intervention or control. Both intervention and control groups will engage in a 16-week program where they will receive regular health promotion messaging about (a) food, nutrition, and diet; and (b) exercise and physical activity. Intervention patients will be asked to track patient generated health data elements related to weight management through a mobile health app loaded on their phones and/or through using a fitness tracker, depending on patient preference, and to share that information with the research team. Intervention patients will also be asked to provide answers to patient-reported outcomes measures on a weekly basis. If intervention patients do not have a fitness tracker, a low-cost option will be provided for them. Both iOS and Android phone options will be supported. The app will be selected from a limited set of well-established options such as LoseIt!, MyFitnessPal, Apple Health, or Google Fit.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* BMI of 25.0-39.9, * Has a smartphone * English or Spanish as primary language * assessed at medium health risk according a risk stratification algorithm based on clinical criteria, diagnostic scoring, and health care utilization

Exclusion criteria

* Does not meet inclusion criteria

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Patient Engagement (Patient Activation Measure)Baseline, Post-InterventionPatient Engagement will be measured by participant performance on the Patient Activation Measurement (PAM)-13 tool. This validated instrument helps to show patients' motivation for being an active participant in managing their health. Each of the 13 items on the tool is rated on a four-point per-item scale, then converted to a total PAM score. The total PAM score is transformed into a scale score with values that range from 0 to 100 based on the calibration tables for the instrument, with higher numbers reflecting better scores and indicative of increased engagement. The scale score is reported here.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Weight Loss16 weeksChange in absolute percent weight
Healthy Days HRQOL-4 Measure16 weeksHealthy days will be measured by participant performance on the Health Related Quality of Life Scores (HRQOL)-4 questionnaire. This questionnaire is scored based on participant reported number of days experiencing poor physical or mental health. The scale ranges from 1-30, with lower scores being better in that they indicate fewer poor health days.
Healthy Days Symptoms Measure16 weeksPatient Reported Outcomes Measures, Healthy Days Symptoms Score - lower scores are better, save for Energy where a higher score is better. Minimum value is 0, maximum value is 30.
Number of Patients Who Responded to Text Messages16 weeksText message response to prompts for weight data.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Intervention
Intervention patients will engage in a 16-week program where they will receive regular health promotion messaging about (a) food, nutrition, and diet; and (b) exercise and physical activity. Intervention patients will be asked to track patient generated health data (PGHD) elements related to weight management through a mobile health app loaded on their phones and/or through using a fitness tracker, depending on patient preference, and to share that information with the research team. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures will be collected pre-and-post-intervention. Intervention patients will also be asked to provide answers to patient-reported outcomes measures on a weekly basis. 16-week program: 16-week program where patients will receive regular health promotion messaging about (a) food, nutrition, and diet; and (b) exercise and physical activity.
150
Control
Control patients will engage in a 16-week program where they will receive regular health promotion messaging about (a) food, nutrition, and diet; and (b) exercise and physical activity. Patient-reported outcomes measures will be collected pre-and-post-intervention. 16-week program: 16-week program where patients will receive regular health promotion messaging about (a) food, nutrition, and diet; and (b) exercise and physical activity.
150
Total300

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up2433
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject32

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalInterventionControl
Age, Continuous45.12 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.85
45.76 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.96
44.30 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.14
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
156 Participants68 Participants88 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
86 Participants51 Participants35 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
58 Participants31 Participants27 Participants
Language
English
192 Participants95 Participants97 Participants
Language
Spanish
108 Participants55 Participants53 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
34 Participants18 Participants16 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
15 Participants9 Participants6 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
44 Participants26 Participants18 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
207 Participants97 Participants110 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
300 participants150 participants150 participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Female
221 Participants114 Participants107 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Male
77 Participants35 Participants42 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Non-binary
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Unknown/Missing
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 1500 / 150
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 1500 / 150
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 1500 / 150

Outcome results

Primary

Patient Engagement (Patient Activation Measure)

Patient Engagement will be measured by participant performance on the Patient Activation Measurement (PAM)-13 tool. This validated instrument helps to show patients' motivation for being an active participant in managing their health. Each of the 13 items on the tool is rated on a four-point per-item scale, then converted to a total PAM score. The total PAM score is transformed into a scale score with values that range from 0 to 100 based on the calibration tables for the instrument, with higher numbers reflecting better scores and indicative of increased engagement. The scale score is reported here.

Time frame: Baseline, Post-Intervention

Population: The number of participants analyzed reflects the number for which complete data were available.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionPatient Engagement (Patient Activation Measure)Baseline70.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.9
InterventionPatient Engagement (Patient Activation Measure)Follow-Up72.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.9
ControlPatient Engagement (Patient Activation Measure)Baseline67.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.9
ControlPatient Engagement (Patient Activation Measure)Follow-Up70.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.1
Secondary

Healthy Days HRQOL-4 Measure

Healthy days will be measured by participant performance on the Health Related Quality of Life Scores (HRQOL)-4 questionnaire. This questionnaire is scored based on participant reported number of days experiencing poor physical or mental health. The scale ranges from 1-30, with lower scores being better in that they indicate fewer poor health days.

Time frame: 16 weeks

Population: The number of participants analyzed reflects the number for which complete data were available.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionHealthy Days HRQOL-4 Measure18.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.66
ControlHealthy Days HRQOL-4 Measure17.93 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.71
Secondary

Healthy Days Symptoms Measure

Patient Reported Outcomes Measures, Healthy Days Symptoms Score - lower scores are better, save for Energy where a higher score is better. Minimum value is 0, maximum value is 30.

Time frame: 16 weeks

Population: The number of participants analyzed reflects the number for which complete data were available.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionHealthy Days Symptoms MeasureSad3.11 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.16
InterventionHealthy Days Symptoms MeasureSleep9.23 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.15
InterventionHealthy Days Symptoms MeasureAnxious4.51 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.77
InterventionHealthy Days Symptoms MeasureEnergy18.28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.12
InterventionHealthy Days Symptoms MeasurePain3.38 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.52
ControlHealthy Days Symptoms MeasureEnergy15.35 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.55
ControlHealthy Days Symptoms MeasurePain5.51 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.2
ControlHealthy Days Symptoms MeasureSad4.15 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.02
ControlHealthy Days Symptoms MeasureAnxious5.65 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.82
ControlHealthy Days Symptoms MeasureSleep9.98 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.45
Secondary

Number of Patients Who Responded to Text Messages

Text message response to prompts for weight data.

Time frame: 16 weeks

Population: Intervention and control patients who received prompts to respond with weight data by text message to the study team.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionNumber of Patients Who Responded to Text MessagesResponded less than prompted104 Participants
InterventionNumber of Patients Who Responded to Text MessagesResponded as many times as prompted7 Participants
InterventionNumber of Patients Who Responded to Text MessagesResponded more than prompted4 Participants
InterventionNumber of Patients Who Responded to Text MessagesDid not respond35 Participants
ControlNumber of Patients Who Responded to Text MessagesDid not respond46 Participants
ControlNumber of Patients Who Responded to Text MessagesResponded less than prompted93 Participants
ControlNumber of Patients Who Responded to Text MessagesResponded more than prompted8 Participants
ControlNumber of Patients Who Responded to Text MessagesResponded as many times as prompted3 Participants
Secondary

Weight Loss

Change in absolute percent weight

Time frame: 16 weeks

Population: The number of participants analyzed reflects the number for which complete weight data were available.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionWeight Loss0.65 percent change in weightStandard Deviation 5
ControlWeight Loss-0.29 percent change in weightStandard Deviation 8

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026