Trends and gaps in precision health research: a scoping review

Abstract

ObjectiveTo determine progress and gaps in global precision health research, examining whether precision health studies integrate multiple types of information for health promotion or restoration.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesSearches in Medline (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature (Google Scholar) were carried out in June 2020.Eligibility criteriaStudies should describe original precision health research; involve human participants, datasets or samples; and collect health-related information. Reviews, editorial articles, conference abstracts or posters, dissertations and articles not published in English were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisThe following data were extracted in independent duplicate: author details, study objectives, technology developed, study design, health conditions addressed, precision health focus, data collected for personalisation, participant characteristics and sentence defining ‘precision health’. Quantitative and qualitative data were summarised narratively in text and presented in tables and graphs.ResultsAfter screening 8053 articles, 225 studies were reviewed. Almost half (105/225, 46.7%) of the studies focused on developing an intervention, primarily digital health promotion tools (80/225, 35.6%). Only 28.9% (65/225) of the studies used at least four types of participant data for tailoring, with personalisation usually based on behavioural (108/225, 48%), sociodemographic (100/225, 44.4%) and/or clinical (98/225, 43.6%) information. Participant median age was 48 years old (IQR 28–61), and the top three health conditions addressed were metabolic disorders (35/225, 15.6%), cardiovascular disease (29/225, 12.9%) and cancer (26/225, 11.6%). Only 68% of the studies (153/225) reported participants’ gender, 38.7% (87/225) provided participants’ race/ethnicity, and 20.4% (46/225) included people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. More than 57% of the articles (130/225) have authors from only one discipline.ConclusionsAlthough there is a growing number of precision health studies that test or develop interventions, there is a significant gap in the integration of multiple data types, systematic intervention assessment using randomised controlled trials and reporting of participant gender and ethnicity. Greater interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to gather multiple data types; collectively analyse big and complex data; and provide interventions that restore, maintain and/or promote good health for all, from birth to old age.

The current understanding of precision medicine and personalised medicine in selected research disciplines: study protocol of a systematic concept analysis

“…By way of example, Viana et al 26 state that ‘precision medicine’ and ‘precision health’ are not identical:…”

“…Distinct from precision medicine, precision health takes a lifespan perspective in health monitoring, identifying actionable risks and intervening early. 26 …”

Precision health in Taiwan: A data-driven diagnostic platform for the future of disease prevention

“…Currently, the world is pursuing precision medicine to improve the health and quality of life of human beings; unfortunately, most countries are only able to apply precision medicine to a population (e.g., patients) in need of personalized treatment [10] . Thus, we realize that developing precision health for a majority of populations (e.g., healthy people and patients) to assess health status and give interventions for preserving or restoring health is overly reliant on many different biobanks and other research databases, as lots of data need to be collected from these databases [11] . However, different biobanks have been established for different purposes and have different structures, which may dissuade research units or biomedical companies from investing in the harmonisation of data for precision medicine.…”

The Current Understanding of Precision Medicine and Personalised Medicine in Selected Research Disciplines: Study Protocol of a Systematic Concept Analysis

“…By way of example, Viana et al [31] state that "precision medicine" and "precision health" are not identical:…”

“…Distinct from precision medicine, precision health takes a lifespan perspective in health monitoring, identifying actionable risks and intervening early. [31] Our systematic concept analysis will focus on the clarification of the two concepts "precision medicine" and "personalised medicine". Surrogate and related terms will not be identified in advance: surrogate terms are other terms used to describe identical concepts, while related terms describe entities that are not identical but have something in common with the concepts under analysis [1].…”