↓ Skip to main content

Information Quality Challenges of Patient-Generated Data in Clinical Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Information Quality Challenges of Patient-Generated Data in Clinical Practice
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00284
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter West, Max Van Kleek, Richard Giordano, Mark Weal, Nigel Shadbolt

Abstract

A characteristic trend of digital health has been the dramatic increase in patient-generated data being presented to clinicians, which follows from the increased ubiquity of self-tracking practices by individuals, driven, in turn, by the proliferation of self-tracking tools and technologies. Such tools not only make self-tracking easier but also potentially more reliable by automating data collection, curation, and storage. While self-tracking practices themselves have been studied extensively in human-computer interaction literature, little work has yet looked at whether these patient-generated data might be able to support clinical processes, such as providing evidence for diagnoses, treatment monitoring, or postprocedure recovery, and how we can define information quality with respect to self-tracked data. In this article, we present the results of a literature review of empirical studies of self-tracking tools, in which we identify how clinicians perceive quality of information from such tools. In the studies, clinicians perceive several characteristics of information quality relating to accuracy and reliability, completeness, context, patient motivation, and representation. We discuss the issues these present in admitting self-tracked data as evidence for clinical decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 37 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 17 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 8%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 41 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,622,209
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,282
of 11,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,736
of 330,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#32
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.