Applying patient-reported outcome methodology to capture patient-reported health data: Report from an NIH Collaboratory roundtable

Enhancing data practices for Whole Health: Strategies for a transformative future

We explored the challenges and solutions for managing data within the Whole Health System (WHS), which operates as a Learning Health System and a patient-centered healthcare approach that combines conventional and complementary approaches. Addressing these challenges is critical for enhancing patient care and improving outcomes within WHS. The proposed solutions include prioritizing interoperability for seamless data exchange, incorporating patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research and real-world data to personalize treatment plans and validate integrative approaches, and leveraging advanced data analytics tools to incorporate patient-reported outcomes, objective metrics, robust data platforms. Implementing these measures will enable WHS to fulfill its mission as a holistic and patient-centered healthcare model, promoting greater collaboration among providers, boosting the well-being of patients and providers, and improving patient outcomes.

Data integration and analysis for circadian medicine

Data integration, data sharing, and standardized analyses are important enablers for data-driven medical research. Circadian medicine is an emerging field with a particularly high need for coordinated and systematic collaboration between researchers from different disciplines. Datasets in circadian medicine are multimodal, ranging from molecular circadian profiles and clinical parameters to physiological measurements and data obtained from (wearable) sensors or reported by patients. Uniquely, data spanning both the time dimension and the spatial dimension (across tissues) are needed to obtain a holistic view of the circadian system. The study of human rhythms in the context of circadian medicine has to confront the heterogeneity of clock properties within and across subjects and our inability to repeatedly obtain relevant biosamples from one subject. This requires informatics solutions for integrating and visualizing relevant data types at various temporal resolutions ranging from milliseconds and seconds to minutes and several hours. Associated challenges range from a lack of standards that can be used to represent all required data in a common interoperable form, to challenges related to data storage, to the need to perform transformations for integrated visualizations, and to privacy issues. The downstream analysis of circadian rhythms requires specialized approaches for the identification, characterization, and discrimination of rhythms. We conclude that circadian medicine research provides an ideal environment for developing innovative methods to address challenges related to the collection, integration, visualization, and analysis of multimodal multidimensional biomedical data.

Patient-reported outcome measures as an outcome variable in sports medicine research

Injury prevention and rehabilitation research often address variables that would be considered clinician-oriented outcomes, such as strength, range of motion, laxity, and return-to-sport. While clinician-oriented variables are helpful in describing the physiological recovery from injury, they neglect the patient perspective and aspects of patient-centered care. Variables that capture patient perspective are essential when considering the impact of injury and recovery on the lives of patients. The inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as dependent variables in sports medicine research, including injury prevention and rehabilitation research, provides a unique perspective regarding the patient's perception of their health status, the effectiveness of treatments, and other information that the patient deems important to their care. Over the last 20 years, there has been a significant increase in the use of PROMs in sports medicine research. The growing body of work gives opportunity to reflect on what has been done and to provide some ideas of how to strengthen the evidence moving forward. This mini-review will discuss ideas for the inclusion of PROMs in sports medicine research, with a focus on critical factors, gaps, and future directions in this area of research. Important elements of research with PROMs, including instrument selection, administration, and interpretation, will be discussed and areas for improvement, consideration, and standardization will be provided.

Stratified care to prevent chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: The TARGET trial. A multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Many patients with acute low back pain (LBP) first seek care from primary care physicians. Evidence is lacking for interventions to prevent transition to chronic LBP in this setting. We aimed to test if implementation of a risk-stratified approach to care would result in lower rates of chronic LBP and improved self-reported disability.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial using 77 primary care clinics in four health care systems across the United States. Practices were randomly assigned to a stratified approach to care (intervention) or usual care (control). Using the STarTBack screening tool, adults with acute LBP were screened low, medium, and high-risk. Patients screened as high-risk were eligible. The intervention included electronic best practice alerts triggering referrals for psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). PIPT education was targeted to community clinics geographically close to intervention primary care clinics. Primary outcomes were transition to chronic LBP and self-reported disability at six months. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02647658.

FINDINGS

Between May 2016 and June 2018, 1207 patients from 38 intervention and 1093 from 37 control practices were followed. In the intervention arm, around 50% of patients were referred for physical therapy (36% for PIPT) compared to 30% in the control. At 6 months, 47% of patients reported transition to chronic LBP in the intervention arm (38 practices, n = 658) versus 51% of patients in the control arm (35 practices, n = 635; OR=0.83 95% CI 0.64, 1.09; p = 0.18). No differences in disability were detected (difference -2·1, 95% CI -4.9-0.6; p = 0.12). Opioids and imaging were prescribed in 22%-25% and 23%-26% of initial visits, for intervention and control, respectively. Twelve-month LBP utilization was similar in the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

There were no differences detected in transition to chronic LBP among patients presenting with acute LBP using a stratified approach to care. Opioid and imaging prescribing rates were non-concordant with clinical guidelines.

FUNDING

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) contract # PCS-1402-10867.