Digital medicine is an interdisciplinary field, drawing together stakeholders with expertize in engineering, manufacturing, clinical science, data science, biostatistics, regulatory science, ethics, patient advocacy, and healthcare policy, to name a few. Although this diversity is undoubtedly valuable, it can lead to confusion regarding terminology and best practices. There are many instances, as we detail in this paper, where a single term is used by different groups to mean different things, as well as cases where multiple terms are used to describe essentially the same concept. Our intent is to clarify core terminology and best practices for the evaluation of Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs), without unnecessarily introducing new terms. We focus on the evaluation of BioMeTs as fit-for-purpose for use in clinical trials. However, our intent is for this framework to be instructional to all users of digital measurement tools, regardless of setting or intended use. We propose and describe a three-component framework intended to provide a foundational evaluation framework for BioMeTs. This framework includes (1) verification, (2) analytical validation, and (3) clinical validation. We aim for this common vocabulary to enable more effective communication and collaboration, generate a common and meaningful evidence base for BioMeTs, and improve the accessibility of the digital medicine field.

Background: With the rise of connected sensor technologies, there are seemingly endless possibilities for new ways to measure health. These technologies offer researchers and clinicians opportunities to go beyond brief snapshots of data captured by traditional in-clinic assessments, to redefine health and disease. Given the myriad opportunities for measurement, how do research or clinical teams know what they should be measuring? Patient engagement, early and often, is paramount to thoughtfully selecting what is most important. Regulators encourage stakeholders to have a patient focus but actionable steps for continuous engagement are not well defined. Without patient-focused measurement, stakeholders risk entrenching digital versions of poor traditional assessments and proliferating low-value tools that are ineffective, burdensome, and reduce both quality and efficiency in clinical care and research. Summary: This article synthesizes and defines a sequential framework of core principles for selecting and developing measurements in research and clinical care that are meaningful for patients. We propose next steps to drive forward the science of high-quality patient engagement in support of measures of health that matter in the era of digital medicine. Key Messages: All measures of health should be meaningful, regardless of the product's regulatory classification, type of measure, or context of use. To evaluate meaningfulness of signals derived from digital sensors, the following four-level framework is useful: Meaningful Aspect of Health, Concept of Interest, Outcome to be measured, and Endpoint (exclusive to research). Incorporating patient input is a dynamic process that requires more than a single, transactional touch point but rather should be conducted continuously throughout the measurement

This manuscript is focused on the use of connected sensor technologies, including wearables and other biosensors, for a wide range of health services, such as collecting digital endpoints in clinical trials and remotely monitoring patients in clinical care. The adoption of these technologies poses five risks that currently exceed our abilities to evaluate and secure these products: (1) validation, (2) security practices, (3) data rights and governance, (4) utility and usability; and (5) economic feasibility. In this manuscript we conduct a landscape analysis of emerging evaluation frameworks developed to better manage these risks, broadly in digital health. We then propose a framework specifically for connected sensor technologies. We provide a pragmatic guide for how to put this evaluation framework into practice, taking lessons from concepts in drug and nutrition labels to craft a connected sensor technology label.npj Digital Medicine (2020) 3:37 ; https://doi.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) global pandemic has shifted how many patients receive outpatient care. Telehealth and remote monitoring have become more prevalent, and measurements taken in a patient’s home using biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) offer convenient opportunities to collect vital sign data. Healthcare providers may lack prior experience using BioMeTs in remote patient care, and, therefore, may be unfamiliar with the many versions of BioMeTs, novel data collection protocols, and context of the values collected. To make informed patient care decisions based on the biometric data collected remotely, it is important to understand the engineering solutions embedded in the products, data collection protocols, form factors (physical size and shape), data quality considerations, and availability of validation information. This article provides an overview of BioMeTs available for collecting vital signs (temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate) and discusses the strengths and limitations of continuous monitoring. We provide considerations for remote data collection and sources of validation information to guide BioMeT use in the era of COVID‐19 and beyond.

Mobile technologies, such as smart phone applications, wearables, ingestibles, and implantables, are increasingly used in clinical research to capture study endpoints. On behalf of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, we aimed to conduct a systematic scoping review and compile a database summarizing pilot studies addressing mobile technology sensor performance, algorithm development, software performance, and/or operational feasibility, in order to provide a resource for guiding decisions about which technology is most suitable for a particular trial. Our systematic search identified 275 publications meeting inclusion criteria. From these papers, we extracted data including the medical condition, concept of interest captured by the mobile technology, outcomes captured by the digital measurement, and details regarding the sensors, algorithms, and study sample. Sixty-seven percent of the technologies identified were wearable sensors, with the remainder including tablets, smartphones, implanted sensors, and cameras. We noted substantial variability in terms of reporting completeness and terminology used. The data have been compiled into an online database maintained by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative that can be filtered and searched electronically, enabling a user to find information most relevant to their work. Our long-term goal is to maintain and update the online database, in order to promote standardization of methods and reporting, encourage collaboration, and avoid redundant studies, thereby contributing to the design and implementation of efficient, high-quality trials.

Objective This study aimed to gather qualitative feedback on patient perceptions of informed consent forms and elicit recommendations to improve readability and utility for enhanced patient safety and engagement in shared decision making. Methods Sixty interviews in personal interviews were conducted consisting of a literacy and numeracy assessment, a comprehension quiz to assess retention of key information, and open-ended questions to determine reactions, clarity of information, and suggestions for improvement. Results Although 68% of the participants had education beyond high school, many still missed comprehension questions and found the forms difficult to read. Recurrent suggestions included specific formatting changes to enhance readability, a need for additional sources of information, mixed attitudes toward inclusion of risk information, and the recognized importance of physician-patient conversations. Conclusions This study provides evidence from the patient perspective that consent forms are too complex and fail to achieve comprehension. Future studies should be conducted using patients’ suggestions for form redesign and inclusion of supplemental educational tools to optimize communication and safety to achieve more informed health care decision making.

The EVIDENCE (EValuatIng connecteD sENsor teChnologiEs) checklist was developed by a multidisciplinary group of content experts convened by the Digital Medicine Society, representing the clinical sciences, data management, technology development, and biostatistics. The aim of EVIDENCE is to promote high quality reporting in studies where the primary objective is an evaluation of a digital measurement product or its constituent parts. Here we use the terms digital measurement product and connected sensor technology interchangeably to refer to tools that process data captured by mobile sensors using algorithms to generate measures of behavioral and/or physiological function. EVIDENCE is applicable to 5 types of evaluations: (1) proof of concept; (2) verification, (3) analytical validation, and (4) clinical validation as defined by the V3 framework; and (5) utility and usability assessments. Using EVIDENCE, those preparing, reading, or reviewing studies evaluating digital measurement products will be better equipped to distinguish necessary reporting requirements to drive high-quality research. With broad adoption, the EVIDENCE checklist will serve as a much-needed guide to raise the bar for quality reporting in published literature evaluating digital measurements products.

The program significantly reduced UAPU rates in high-risk populations. LSS methodologies are a sustainable approach to reducing hospital-acquired conditions that should be broadly tested and implemented.