Patient-generated health data (PGHD), derived from consumer apps and wearable devices, offers promising opportunities for enhancing personalised care and contributing to medical research. As healthcare systems move toward digital transformation, PGHD has emerged as a potential asset in both clinical and research contexts. However, the integration of these data sources into routine practice depends heavily on the attitudes and perceptions of healthcare professionals and researchers. A recent systematic review of 33 studies conducted between 2013 and 2023 provides insights into how these stakeholders view PGHD, highlighting both the opportunities and challenges that come with its adoption.
Perceived Benefits of PGHD in Clinical and Research Settings
Many healthcare professionals and researchers recognise the value of PGHD in supporting patient care. These data sources can provide more comprehensive insights into a patient’s health by capturing information outside clinical settings, such as daily activity, sleep patterns, stress levels and medication adherence. In various disease areas—ranging from diabetes and cancer to mental health and neurological conditions—clinicians have reported using PGHD to improve diagnosis, monitor treatment efficacy and tailor individual care plans. Some practitioners appreciated how PGHD allowed them to identify trends, set consultation agendas and improve communication with patients.
Beyond the clinical sphere, researchers saw PGHD as useful for addressing questions that traditional data sets often cannot answer. These include studying real-world outcomes, enhancing the ecological validity of clinical research and supporting large-scale health data initiatives. In the context of digital health policy, PGHD is also viewed as a key resource for secondary uses, such as in the European Health Data Space initiative, which aims to foster cross-border data sharing and support public health research and innovation.
Concerns Over Data Quality, Workflow and Implementation
Despite the perceived benefits, significant concerns remain around the integration of PGHD into clinical workflows. The reliability and validity of PGHD were recurring issues, particularly when data came from consumer-grade devices. Many healthcare providers expressed doubts about the consistency and accuracy of measurements such as heart rate or glucose levels, especially if collected outside controlled environments. Some also questioned patients’ ability to interpret or present their data accurately during consultations.
Workflow integration emerged as another substantial barrier. Reviewing and interpreting PGHD often adds to clinicians’ workload, particularly when it is not seamlessly incorporated into existing systems like electronic health records. In some cases, healthcare professionals were unclear about their roles and responsibilities when dealing with this data, raising concerns about medico-legal liability and communication protocols. Without well-designed platforms and decision support tools, PGHD risks becoming an added burden rather than a clinical asset.
Factors Shaping Professional Attitudes Toward PGHD
Several factors influenced how healthcare professionals perceived the utility of PGHD. Clinicians who had direct experience with pilot projects or research trials involving wearables and apps were generally more positive about their implementation. These professionals often accessed PGHD through dedicated dashboards or integrated reports, making it easier to extract relevant information. Conversely, those unfamiliar with these tools or working in resource-constrained environments were less likely to see PGHD as useful.
Another variable was the type of data and disease context. In chronic conditions like diabetes or arthritis, where self-monitoring is already common, PGHD was more readily accepted. In acute or complex care scenarios, clinicians were more cautious, preferring validated clinical metrics over patient-tracked information. Concerns also varied depending on the professional background; for instance, researchers tended to focus on data privacy and standardisation issues, while frontline providers worried more about workflow disruption and patient anxiety.
The integration of patient-generated health data into healthcare and research is a nuanced process influenced by diverse professional attitudes. While many recognise its potential to improve patient engagement, personalise care and expand research opportunities, concerns around data quality, workflow integration and role clarity must be addressed. Tailored training, supportive digital infrastructure and clear policy frameworks will be essential in empowering healthcare professionals to make the most of PGHD. In the future, ensuring that the insights and needs of clinicians and researchers are central to implementation strategies will be crucial for realising the full value of these emerging data sources.
Source: npj digital medicine
Image Credit: iStock
