Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Sep 11, 2021
Open Peer Review Period: Sep 11, 2021 - Nov 6, 2021
Date Accepted: Jan 14, 2022
Date Submitted to PubMed: Apr 18, 2022
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Recommendations for Defining and Reporting Adherence Measured by Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Systematic Review

Olaye IM, Belovsky MP, Bataille L, Cheng R, Ciger A, Fortuna KL, Izmailova E, McCall D, Miller CJ, Muehlhausen W, Northcott CA, Rodriguez-Chavez IR, Pratap A, Vandendriessche B, Zisman-Ilani Y, Bakker JP

Recommendations for Defining and Reporting Adherence Measured by Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Systematic Review

J Med Internet Res 2022;24(4):e33537

DOI: 10.2196/33537

PMID: 35436221

PMCID: 9052021

Recommendations for defining and reporting adherence measured by Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs): A systematic review

  • Iredia M Olaye; 
  • Mia P Belovsky; 
  • Lauren Bataille; 
  • Royce Cheng; 
  • Ali Ciger; 
  • Karen L Fortuna; 
  • Elena Izmailova; 
  • Debbe McCall; 
  • Christopher J Miller; 
  • Willie Muehlhausen; 
  • Carrie A Northcott; 
  • Isaac R Rodriguez-Chavez; 
  • Abhishek Pratap; 
  • Benjamin Vandendriessche; 
  • Yaara Zisman-Ilani; 
  • Jessie P Bakker

ABSTRACT

Background:

Sub-optimal adherence to data collection procedures and/or a study intervention is often the cause of a failed clinical trial. Data from biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) can measure adherence to both digital therapeutics and digital data collection procedures, thereby providing the opportunity to identify the determinants of adherence and thereafter, methods to maximize adherence.

Objective:

Our goal was to describe the methods and definitions by which adherence has been captured and reported using BioMeTs in recent years. Identifying key gaps allowed us to make recommendations regarding minimum reporting requirements and consistency of definitions for BioMeT-based adherence data.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2014 and 2019 that deployed a BioMeT outside of the clinical/lab setting for which a quantitative, non-surrogate, sensor-based measurement of adherence was reported. After systematically screening manuscripts for eligibility, we extracted details regarding study design, participants, the BioMeT/s used, and the definition and units of adherence. Primary definitions of adherence were categorized as a continuous variable based on duration (highest resolution), a continuous variable based on the number of measurements completed, or a categorical variable (lowest resolution).

Results:

Our PubMed search terms identified 940 manuscripts; 100 met our eligibility criteria, which contained descriptions of 110 BioMeTs. We identified 37 unique definitions of adherence reported for 110 BioMeTs, and observed that the uniformity of adherence definitions was associated with the resolution of the data reported. When adherence was reported as a continuous time-based variable, the same definition of adherence was adopted for 92% of the tools; however, when adherence data were simplified to a categorical variable, we observed 25 unique definitions of adherence reported for 37 tools.

Conclusions:

We recommend that: A) quantitative, non-surrogate, sensor-based, adherence data be reported for all BioMeTs when feasible; B) a clear description of the sensor/s used to capture adherence data, the algorithm/s that convert sample-level measurements to a metric of adherence, and the analytical validation data demonstrating that BioMeT-generated adherence is an accurate and reliable measurement of actual usage, be provided when available; and C) primary adherence data be reported as a continuous variable followed by categorical definitions if needed, and that the categories adopted are supported by clinical validation data and/or consistent with previous reports.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Olaye IM, Belovsky MP, Bataille L, Cheng R, Ciger A, Fortuna KL, Izmailova E, McCall D, Miller CJ, Muehlhausen W, Northcott CA, Rodriguez-Chavez IR, Pratap A, Vandendriessche B, Zisman-Ilani Y, Bakker JP

Recommendations for Defining and Reporting Adherence Measured by Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Systematic Review

J Med Internet Res 2022;24(4):e33537

DOI: 10.2196/33537

PMID: 35436221

PMCID: 9052021

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.