通过数据驱动方法确定与数字健康观察性研究依从性和保留性相关的关键因素:对两项前瞻性纵向研究的探索性二次分析。

IF 23.8 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Peter J Cho, Iredia M Olaye, Md Mobashir Hasan Shandhi, Eric J Daza, Luca Foschini, Jessilyn P Dunn
{"title":"通过数据驱动方法确定与数字健康观察性研究依从性和保留性相关的关键因素:对两项前瞻性纵向研究的探索性二次分析。","authors":"Peter J Cho, Iredia M Olaye, Md Mobashir Hasan Shandhi, Eric J Daza, Luca Foschini, Jessilyn P Dunn","doi":"10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00219-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Longitudinal digital health studies combine passively collected information from digital devices, such as commercial wearable devices, and actively contributed data, such as surveys, from participants. Although the use of smartphones and access to the internet supports the development of these studies, challenges exist in collecting representative data due to low adherence and retention. We aimed to identify key factors related to adherence and retention in digital health studies and develop a methodology to identify factors that are associated with and might affect study participant engagement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this exploratory secondary analysis, we used data from two separate prospective longitudinal digital health studies, conducted among adult participants (age ≥18 years) during the COVID-19 pandemic by the BIG IDEAs Laboratory (BIL) at Duke University (Durham, NC, USA; April 2, 2020 to May 25, 2021) and Evidation Health (San Mateo, CA, USA; April 4 to Aug 31, 2020). Prospective daily or weekly surveys were administered for up to 15 months in the BIL study and daily surveys were administered for 5 months in the Evidation Health study. We defined metrics related to adherence to assess how participants engage with longitudinal digital health studies and developed models to infer how demographic factors and the day of survey delivery might be associated with these metrics. We defined retention as the time until a participant drops out of the study. For the purpose of clustering analysis, we defined three metrics of survey adherence: (1) total number of surveys completed, (2) participation regularity (ie, frequency of filling out surveys consecutively), and (3) time of activity (ie, engagement pattern relative to enrolment time). We assessed these metrics and explored differences by age, sex, race, and day of survey delivery. We analysed the data by unsupervised clustering, survival analysis, and recurrent event analysis with multistate modelling, with analyses restricted to individuals who provided data on age, sex, and race.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In the BIL study, 5784 unique participants with the required demographic data completed 388 600 unique daily surveys (mean 67 [SD 90] surveys per participant). In the Evidation Health study, 89 479 unique participants with the required demographic data completed 2 080 992 unique daily surveys (23 [32] surveys per participant). Participants were grouped into adherence clusters based on the three metrics of adherence, and we identified statistically discernible differences in age, race, and sex between clusters. Most of the individuals aged 18-29 years were observed in the clusters with low or medium adherence, whereas the oldest age group (≥60 years) was generally more represented in clusters with high adherence than younger age groups. For retention, survival analysis indicated that 18-29 years was the age group with the highest risk of exiting the study at any given point in time (BIL study, hazard ratio [HR] for 18-29 years vs ≥60 years, 1·69 [95% CI 1·53-1·86; p<0·0001]; Evidation Health study, HR 1·50 [1·47-1·53; p<0·0001]). Sex and race were not discernible predictors of retention in the BIL study. In the Evidation Health study, male participants (vs female participants; HR 0·96 [0·94-0·98]; p<0·0001) and White participants (vs Asian participants; HR 0·96 [0·93-0·98; p=0·0004) had a lower risk of study exit, and Other race participants (vs Asian participants) had a higher risk of study exit (HR 1·10 [1·06-1·14; p<0·0001]). Recurrent event analysis confirmed age as the factor most associated with adherence; for the 18-29 years age group (vs ≥60 years group), the transition intensity from an active to inactive state per day in the BIL study was 1·661 (95% CI 1·606-1·718) and in the Evidation Health study was 1·108 (1·094-1·121). Participation patterns were variable by race and sex between the studies.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Our analyses revealed that age was consistently associated with adherence and retention, with younger participants having lower adherence and higher dropout rates than older participants. Unsupervised clustering and survival analyses are established methods in this field, whereas the use of recurrent event analysis, was, to our knowledge, the first instance of the application of this method to remote digital health data. These methods can help to understand participant engagement in digital health studies, supporting targeted measures to improve adherence and retention.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>US National Science Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Microsoft AI for Health, Duke Clinical and Translational Science Institute, North Carolina Biotechnology Center, Duke MEDx, Duke Bass Connections, Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy, and Duke Office of Information Technology.</p>","PeriodicalId":48534,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Digital Health","volume":"7 1","pages":"e23-e34"},"PeriodicalIF":23.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11725373/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identification of key factors related to digital health observational study adherence and retention by data-driven approaches: an exploratory secondary analysis of two prospective longitudinal studies.\",\"authors\":\"Peter J Cho, Iredia M Olaye, Md Mobashir Hasan Shandhi, Eric J Daza, Luca Foschini, Jessilyn P Dunn\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00219-X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Longitudinal digital health studies combine passively collected information from digital devices, such as commercial wearable devices, and actively contributed data, such as surveys, from participants. Although the use of smartphones and access to the internet supports the development of these studies, challenges exist in collecting representative data due to low adherence and retention. We aimed to identify key factors related to adherence and retention in digital health studies and develop a methodology to identify factors that are associated with and might affect study participant engagement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this exploratory secondary analysis, we used data from two separate prospective longitudinal digital health studies, conducted among adult participants (age ≥18 years) during the COVID-19 pandemic by the BIG IDEAs Laboratory (BIL) at Duke University (Durham, NC, USA; April 2, 2020 to May 25, 2021) and Evidation Health (San Mateo, CA, USA; April 4 to Aug 31, 2020). Prospective daily or weekly surveys were administered for up to 15 months in the BIL study and daily surveys were administered for 5 months in the Evidation Health study. We defined metrics related to adherence to assess how participants engage with longitudinal digital health studies and developed models to infer how demographic factors and the day of survey delivery might be associated with these metrics. We defined retention as the time until a participant drops out of the study. For the purpose of clustering analysis, we defined three metrics of survey adherence: (1) total number of surveys completed, (2) participation regularity (ie, frequency of filling out surveys consecutively), and (3) time of activity (ie, engagement pattern relative to enrolment time). We assessed these metrics and explored differences by age, sex, race, and day of survey delivery. We analysed the data by unsupervised clustering, survival analysis, and recurrent event analysis with multistate modelling, with analyses restricted to individuals who provided data on age, sex, and race.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In the BIL study, 5784 unique participants with the required demographic data completed 388 600 unique daily surveys (mean 67 [SD 90] surveys per participant). In the Evidation Health study, 89 479 unique participants with the required demographic data completed 2 080 992 unique daily surveys (23 [32] surveys per participant). Participants were grouped into adherence clusters based on the three metrics of adherence, and we identified statistically discernible differences in age, race, and sex between clusters. Most of the individuals aged 18-29 years were observed in the clusters with low or medium adherence, whereas the oldest age group (≥60 years) was generally more represented in clusters with high adherence than younger age groups. For retention, survival analysis indicated that 18-29 years was the age group with the highest risk of exiting the study at any given point in time (BIL study, hazard ratio [HR] for 18-29 years vs ≥60 years, 1·69 [95% CI 1·53-1·86; p<0·0001]; Evidation Health study, HR 1·50 [1·47-1·53; p<0·0001]). Sex and race were not discernible predictors of retention in the BIL study. In the Evidation Health study, male participants (vs female participants; HR 0·96 [0·94-0·98]; p<0·0001) and White participants (vs Asian participants; HR 0·96 [0·93-0·98; p=0·0004) had a lower risk of study exit, and Other race participants (vs Asian participants) had a higher risk of study exit (HR 1·10 [1·06-1·14; p<0·0001]). Recurrent event analysis confirmed age as the factor most associated with adherence; for the 18-29 years age group (vs ≥60 years group), the transition intensity from an active to inactive state per day in the BIL study was 1·661 (95% CI 1·606-1·718) and in the Evidation Health study was 1·108 (1·094-1·121). Participation patterns were variable by race and sex between the studies.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Our analyses revealed that age was consistently associated with adherence and retention, with younger participants having lower adherence and higher dropout rates than older participants. Unsupervised clustering and survival analyses are established methods in this field, whereas the use of recurrent event analysis, was, to our knowledge, the first instance of the application of this method to remote digital health data. These methods can help to understand participant engagement in digital health studies, supporting targeted measures to improve adherence and retention.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>US National Science Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Microsoft AI for Health, Duke Clinical and Translational Science Institute, North Carolina Biotechnology Center, Duke MEDx, Duke Bass Connections, Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy, and Duke Office of Information Technology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Digital Health\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"e23-e34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":23.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11725373/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Digital Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00219-X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Digital Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00219-X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:纵向数字健康研究结合了从数字设备(如商业可穿戴设备)被动收集的信息和参与者主动提供的数据(如调查)。尽管智能手机的使用和互联网的接入支持了这些研究的发展,但由于依从性和保留率低,在收集代表性数据方面存在挑战。我们的目标是确定数字健康研究中与依从性和保留相关的关键因素,并开发一种方法来确定与研究参与者参与相关并可能影响研究参与者参与的因素。方法:在这项探索性的二次分析中,我们使用了来自两项独立的前瞻性纵向数字健康研究的数据,这些研究是由杜克大学(Durham, NC, USA)的BIG IDEAs实验室(BIL)在COVID-19大流行期间对成年参与者(年龄≥18岁)进行的;2020年4月2日至2021年5月25日)和Evidation Health (San Mateo, CA, USA;2020年4月4日至8月31日)。在BIL研究中进行了长达15个月的前瞻性每日或每周调查,在Evidation Health研究中进行了5个月的每日调查。我们定义了与依从性相关的指标,以评估参与者如何参与纵向数字健康研究,并开发了模型,以推断人口因素和调查交付日期如何与这些指标相关联。我们将保留时间定义为参与者退出研究的时间。为了进行聚类分析,我们定义了调查依从性的三个指标:(1)完成调查的总数,(2)参与频率(即连续填写调查的频率)和(3)活动时间(即相对于注册时间的参与模式)。我们评估了这些指标,并探讨了年龄、性别、种族和调查交付日期的差异。我们通过无监督聚类、生存分析和多状态模型的复发事件分析来分析数据,分析仅限于提供年龄、性别和种族数据的个体。研究结果:在BIL研究中,5784名具有所需人口统计数据的独特参与者完成了388 600次独特的每日调查(平均每位参与者67次[SD 90]调查)。在Evidation Health研究中,89 479名具有所需人口统计数据的独特参与者完成了2 080 992项独特的每日调查(每位参与者23 bb10项调查)。根据依从性的三个指标将参与者分为依从性组,我们确定了组间年龄、种族和性别的统计学差异。大多数年龄在18-29岁的个体被观察到在低或中等依从性的集群中,而年龄最大的年龄组(≥60岁)通常在高依从性的集群中比年轻年龄组更多。对于保留,生存分析表明18-29岁是在任何给定时间点退出研究的风险最高的年龄组(BIL研究,18-29岁vs≥60岁的风险比[HR], 1.69 [95% CI 1.53 -1·86;解释:我们的分析显示,年龄与依从性和保留率始终相关,年轻参与者的依从性较低,退出率高于年长参与者。无监督聚类和生存分析是该领域的既定方法,而据我们所知,使用复发事件分析是将该方法应用于远程数字健康数据的第一个实例。这些方法有助于了解参与者对数字健康研究的参与情况,支持有针对性的措施,以提高依从性和保留性。资助:美国国家科学基金会、美国国立卫生研究院、微软健康人工智能、杜克临床和转化科学研究所、北卡罗来纳生物技术中心、杜克医学中心、杜克巴斯连接、杜克马戈利斯卫生政策中心和杜克信息技术办公室。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identification of key factors related to digital health observational study adherence and retention by data-driven approaches: an exploratory secondary analysis of two prospective longitudinal studies.

Background: Longitudinal digital health studies combine passively collected information from digital devices, such as commercial wearable devices, and actively contributed data, such as surveys, from participants. Although the use of smartphones and access to the internet supports the development of these studies, challenges exist in collecting representative data due to low adherence and retention. We aimed to identify key factors related to adherence and retention in digital health studies and develop a methodology to identify factors that are associated with and might affect study participant engagement.

Methods: In this exploratory secondary analysis, we used data from two separate prospective longitudinal digital health studies, conducted among adult participants (age ≥18 years) during the COVID-19 pandemic by the BIG IDEAs Laboratory (BIL) at Duke University (Durham, NC, USA; April 2, 2020 to May 25, 2021) and Evidation Health (San Mateo, CA, USA; April 4 to Aug 31, 2020). Prospective daily or weekly surveys were administered for up to 15 months in the BIL study and daily surveys were administered for 5 months in the Evidation Health study. We defined metrics related to adherence to assess how participants engage with longitudinal digital health studies and developed models to infer how demographic factors and the day of survey delivery might be associated with these metrics. We defined retention as the time until a participant drops out of the study. For the purpose of clustering analysis, we defined three metrics of survey adherence: (1) total number of surveys completed, (2) participation regularity (ie, frequency of filling out surveys consecutively), and (3) time of activity (ie, engagement pattern relative to enrolment time). We assessed these metrics and explored differences by age, sex, race, and day of survey delivery. We analysed the data by unsupervised clustering, survival analysis, and recurrent event analysis with multistate modelling, with analyses restricted to individuals who provided data on age, sex, and race.

Findings: In the BIL study, 5784 unique participants with the required demographic data completed 388 600 unique daily surveys (mean 67 [SD 90] surveys per participant). In the Evidation Health study, 89 479 unique participants with the required demographic data completed 2 080 992 unique daily surveys (23 [32] surveys per participant). Participants were grouped into adherence clusters based on the three metrics of adherence, and we identified statistically discernible differences in age, race, and sex between clusters. Most of the individuals aged 18-29 years were observed in the clusters with low or medium adherence, whereas the oldest age group (≥60 years) was generally more represented in clusters with high adherence than younger age groups. For retention, survival analysis indicated that 18-29 years was the age group with the highest risk of exiting the study at any given point in time (BIL study, hazard ratio [HR] for 18-29 years vs ≥60 years, 1·69 [95% CI 1·53-1·86; p<0·0001]; Evidation Health study, HR 1·50 [1·47-1·53; p<0·0001]). Sex and race were not discernible predictors of retention in the BIL study. In the Evidation Health study, male participants (vs female participants; HR 0·96 [0·94-0·98]; p<0·0001) and White participants (vs Asian participants; HR 0·96 [0·93-0·98; p=0·0004) had a lower risk of study exit, and Other race participants (vs Asian participants) had a higher risk of study exit (HR 1·10 [1·06-1·14; p<0·0001]). Recurrent event analysis confirmed age as the factor most associated with adherence; for the 18-29 years age group (vs ≥60 years group), the transition intensity from an active to inactive state per day in the BIL study was 1·661 (95% CI 1·606-1·718) and in the Evidation Health study was 1·108 (1·094-1·121). Participation patterns were variable by race and sex between the studies.

Interpretation: Our analyses revealed that age was consistently associated with adherence and retention, with younger participants having lower adherence and higher dropout rates than older participants. Unsupervised clustering and survival analyses are established methods in this field, whereas the use of recurrent event analysis, was, to our knowledge, the first instance of the application of this method to remote digital health data. These methods can help to understand participant engagement in digital health studies, supporting targeted measures to improve adherence and retention.

Funding: US National Science Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Microsoft AI for Health, Duke Clinical and Translational Science Institute, North Carolina Biotechnology Center, Duke MEDx, Duke Bass Connections, Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy, and Duke Office of Information Technology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
41.20
自引率
1.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Digital Health publishes important, innovative, and practice-changing research on any topic connected with digital technology in clinical medicine, public health, and global health. The journal’s open access content crosses subject boundaries, building bridges between health professionals and researchers.By bringing together the most important advances in this multidisciplinary field,The Lancet Digital Health is the most prominent publishing venue in digital health. We publish a range of content types including Articles,Review, Comment, and Correspondence, contributing to promoting digital technologies in health practice worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信