Clinician Perspectives on Integrating Mobile Sensor Data Into Cancer Care: Mixed Methods Study

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Wearable devices are becoming more ubiquitous and are capable of capturing health-relevant information that patients may be interested in sharing with their providers. However, limited research has been conducted on oncology provider perspectives on how these data could be used to inform cancer care. Objective: The goal of this study was to understand oncology clinicians’ preferences about which data would be most clinically valuable and in what clinical scenarios, the benefits and barriers to integrating wearable device data into cancer care, and perspectives on how wearable device data could impact decision-making using 3 clinical vignettes. Methods: A total of 13 oncology care clinicians completed an online questionnaire to assess the perceived value of different types of wearable device data in different clinical scenarios and participated in semistructured interviews to gather preferences around integrating these data into clinical workflows. During the interviews, providers were also presented with 3 clinical vignettes and asked for clinical recommendations both before and after seeing the patient’s wearable device data. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize quantitative data from questionnaires and structured interview questions, and interviews were transcribed and coded using an iterative thematic analysis approach. Results: Survey responses indicated that providers were most interested in tracking vital sign metrics, followed by data related to falls and functioning, and then by data on sleep and activity. Clinicians thought that wearable device data might be especially useful for remotely monitoring patients at high-risk moments in their care trajectory, such as after an acute hospitalization or after starting a new outpatient treatment. Four main themes were discussed by providers in the interviews: (1) corroborating reports, (2) identifying new issues, (3) coordinating care, and (4) patient-provider communication. Although there were no statistically significant differences in clinical recommendations before and after viewing wearable device data for any vignette (all P >.25), all clinicians reported that the wearable device data impacted their decision-making confidence, and most rated the wearable device data as helpful. Conclusions: Oncology providers highlighted the potential clinical value of vital sign and physical functioning data from wearable devices, particularly when outpatients might be at risk for readmissions or other acute deteriorations between clinic visits. Providers noted that the objective data captured by consumer wearable devices can be helpful complements to patient and caregiver subjective reports and that this information could improve patient-provider communication and care coordination. During the interviews, most providers found wearable device data to be helpful when making decisions. While there are challenges to address on how to integrate this information into the clinical workflow and communicate alerts with patients, there is cautious enthusiasm among clinicians about how these data could inform and improve cancer care.

This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit: