My Data, My Choice? - German Patient Organizations' Attitudes towards Big Data-Driven Approaches in Personalized Medicine. An Empirical-Ethical Study

Patients' perspectives on digital health tools

Objective

Digital technology has changed the way healthcare is delivered and accessed. However, the focus is mostly on technology and clinical aspects. This review aimed to integrate and critically analyse the available knowledge regarding patients' perspectives on digital health tools and identify facilitators and barriers to their uptake.

Methods

A narrative review was conducted using the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Information related to facilitators and barriers to uptake was synthesised and interpreted using thematic and content analyses, respectively.

Results

Seventy-one out of 1722 articles identified were eligible for inclusion. Patient empowerment, self-management, and personalisation were identified as the main factors that contributed to patient uptake in using digital health tools. Digital literacy, health literacy, and privacy concerns were identified as barriers to the uptake of digital health technology.

Conclusion

Digital health technologies have changed the way healthcare is experienced by patients. Research highlights the disconnect between the development and implementation of digital health tools and the patients they are created for. This review may serve as the foundation for future research incorporating patients' perspectives to help increase patients' engagement with emerging technologies.

Innovation

Participatory design approaches have the potential to support the creation of patient-centred digital health tools.

How can we deliver on the promise of precision medicine in oncology and beyond? A practical roadmap for action

Background

Precision medicine (PM) is a form of personalized medicine that recognizes that individuals with the same condition may have different underlying factors and uses molecular information to provide tailored treatments. This approach can improve treatment outcomes and transform lives through favorable risk/benefit ratios, avoidance of ineffective interventions, and possible cost savings, as evidenced in the field of lung cancer and other oncology/therapeutic settings, including cardiac disease, diabetes, and rare diseases. However, the potential benefits of PM have yet to be fully realized.

Discussion

There are many barriers to the implementation of PM in clinical practice, including fragmentation of the PM landscape, siloed approaches to address shared challenges, unwarranted variation in availability and access to PM, lack of standardization, and limited understanding of patients' experience and needs throughout the PM pathway. We believe that a diverse, intersectoral multistakeholder collaboration, with three main pillars of activity: generation of data to demonstrate the benefit of PM, education to support informed decision-making, and addressing barriers across the patient pathway, is necessary to reach the shared goal of making PM an accessible and sustainable reality. Besides healthcare providers, researchers, policymakers/regulators/payers, and industry representatives, patients in particular must be equal partners and should be central to the PM approach-from early research through to clinical trials and approval of new treatments-to ensure it represents their entire experience and identifies barriers, solutions, and opportunities at the point of delivery.

Conclusion

We propose a practical and iterative roadmap to advance PM and call for all stakeholders across the healthcare system to employ a collaborative, cocreated, patient-centered methodology to close gaps and fully realize the potential of PM.

Chronic Heart Failure Patients’ Attitudes towards Digital Device Data for Self-Documentation and Research in Germany: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study (Preprint)

Background

In recent years, the use of digital mobile measurement devices (DMMDs) for self-documentation in cardiovascular care in Western industrialized health care systems has increased. For patients with chronic heart failure (cHF), digital self-documentation plays an increasingly important role in self-management. Data from DMMDs can also be integrated into telemonitoring programs or data-intensive medical research to collect and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures through data sharing. However, the implementation of data-intensive devices and data sharing poses several challenges for doctors and patients as well as for the ethical governance of data-driven medical research.

Objective

This study aims to explore the potential and challenges of digital device data in cardiology research from patients’ perspectives. Leading research questions of the study concerned the attitudes of patients with cHF toward health-related data collected in the use of digital devices for self-documentation as well as sharing these data and consenting to data sharing for research purposes.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of patients of a research in cardiology was conducted at a German university medical center (N=159) in 2020 (March to July). Eligible participants were German-speaking adult patients with cHF at that center. A pen-and-pencil questionnaire was sent by mail.

Results

Most participants (77/105, 73.3%) approved digital documentation, as they expected the device data to help them observe their body and its functions more objectively. Digital device data were believed to provide cognitive support, both for patients’ self-assessment and doctors’ evaluation of their patients’ current health condition. Interestingly, positive attitudes toward DMMD data providing cognitive support were, in particular, voiced by older patients aged >65 years. However, approximately half of the participants (56/105, 53.3%) also reported difficulty in dealing with self-documented data that lay outside the optimal medical target range. Furthermore, our findings revealed preferences for the self-management of DMMD data disclosed for data-intensive medical research among German patients with cHF, which are best implemented with a dynamic consent model.

Conclusions

Our findings provide potentially valuable insights for introducing DMMD in cardiovascular research in the German context. They have several practical implications, such as a high divergence in attitudes among patients with cHF toward different data-receiving organizations as well as a large variance in preferences for the modes of receiving information included in the consenting procedure for data sharing for research. We suggest addressing patients’ multiple views on consenting and data sharing in institutional normative governance frameworks for data-intensive medical research.