Application of Patient-Generated Health Data Among Older Adults With Cancer: Scoping Review

Background: The advancement of information and communication technologies has spurred a growing interest in and increased applications of patient-generated health data (PGHD). In particular, PGHD may be promising for older adults with cancer who have increased survival rates and experience a variety of symptoms. Objective: This scoping review aimed to identify the characteristics of research on PGHD as applied to older adults with cancer and to assess the current use of PGHD. Methods: Guided by Arksey and O’Malley as well as the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology for scoping reviews, 6 electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. In addition, the reference lists of the selected studies were screened to identify gray literature. The researchers independently screened the literature according to the predefined eligibility criteria. Data from the selected studies were extracted, capturing study, participant, and PGHD characteristics. Results: Of the 1090 identified studies, 88 were selected. The publication trend gradually increased, with a majority of studies published since 2017 (69/88, 78%). Almost half of the studies were conducted in North America (38/88, 43%), followed by Europe (30/88, 34%). The most common setting in which the studies were conducted was the participant’s home (69/88, 78%). The treatment status varied; the median sample size was 50 (IQR 33.8-84.0). The devices that were used to measure the PGHD were classified as research-grade wearable devices (57/113, 50.4%), consumer-grade wearable devices (28/113, 24.8%), or smartphones or tablet PCs for mobile apps (23/113, 20.4%). More than half of the studies measured physical activity (69/123, 56.1%), followed by patient-reported outcomes (23/123, 18.7%), vital signs (13/123, 10.6%), and sleep (12/123, 9.8%). The PGHD were mainly collected passively (63/88, 72%), and active collection methods were used from 2015 onward (20/88, 23%). In this review, the stages of PGHD use were classified as follows: (1) identification, monitoring, review, and analysis (88/88, 100%); (2) feedback and reporting (32/88, 39%); (3) motivation (30/88, 34%); and (4) education and coaching (19/88, 22%). Conclusions: This scoping review provides a comprehensive summary of the overall characteristics and use stages of PGHD in older adults with various types and stages of cancer. Future research should emphasize the use of PGHD, which interacts with patients to provide patient-centered care through patient engagement. By enhancing symptom monitoring, enabling timely interventions, and promoting patient involvement, PGHD have the potential to improve the well-being of older adults with cancer, contributing to better health management and quality of life. Therefore, our findings may provide valuable insights into PGHD that health care providers and researchers can use for geriatric cancer care.