Martin Wiesner

Bio: Martin Wiesner is an academic researcher from Heilbronn University. The author has contributed to research in topics: eHealth & Recommender system. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 23 publications receiving 382 citations.

Health recommender systems: concepts, requirements, technical basics and challenges

Abstract: During the last decades huge amounts of data have been collected in clinical databases representing patients' health states (e.g., as laboratory results, treatment plans, medical reports). Hence, digital information available for patient-oriented decision making has increased drastically but is often scattered across different sites. As as solution, personal health record systems (PHRS) are meant to centralize an individual's health data and to allow access for the owner as well as for authorized health professionals. Yet, expert-oriented language, complex interrelations of medical facts and information overload in general pose major obstacles for patients to understand their own record and to draw adequate conclusions. In this context, recommender systems may supply patients with additional laymen-friendly information helping to better comprehend their health status as represented by their record. However, such systems must be adapted to cope with the specific requirements in the health domain in order to deliver highly relevant information for patients. They are referred to as health recommender systems (HRS). In this article we give an introduction to health recommender systems and explain why they are a useful enhancement to PHR solutions. Basic concepts and scenarios are discussed and a first implementation is presented. In addition, we outline an evaluation approach for such a system, which is supported by medical experts. The construction of a test collection for case-related recommendations is described. Finally, challenges and open issues are discussed.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of eHealth Services: Systematic Literature Analysis

Abstract: Background: The field of eHealth has a history of more than 20 years. During that time, many different eHealth services were developed. However, factors influencing the adoption of such services were seldom the main focus of analyses. For this reason, organizations adopting and implementing eHealth services seem not to be fully aware of the barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of eHealth services into routine care. Objective: The objective of this work is to provide (1) a comprehensive list of relevant barriers to be considered and (2) a list of facilitators or success factors to help in planning and implementing successful eHealth services. Methods: For this study, a twofold approach was applied. First, we gathered experts’ current opinions on facilitators and barriers in implementing eHealth services via expert discussions at two health informatics conferences held in Europe. Second, we conducted a systematic literature analysis concerning the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of eHealth services. Finally, we merged the results of the expert discussions with those of the systematic literature analysis. Results: Both expert discussions (23 and 10 experts, respectively) identified 15 barriers and 31 facilitators, whereas 76 barriers and 268 facilitators were found in 38 of the initial 56 articles published from 12 different countries. For the analyzed publications, the count of distinct barriers reported ranged from 0 to 40 (mean 10.24, SD 8.87, median 8). Likewise, between 0 and 48 facilitators were mentioned in the literature (mean 9.18, SD 9.33, median 6). The combination of both sources resulted in 77 barriers and 292 facilitators for the adoption and implementation of eHealth services. Conclusions: This work contributes a comprehensive list of barriers and facilitators for the implementation and adoption of eHealth services. Addressing barriers early, and leveraging facilitators during the implementation, can help create eHealth services that better meet the needs of users and provide higher benefits for patients and caregivers.

Adapting recommender systems to the requirements of personal health record systems

Abstract: In the future many people in industrialized countries will manage their personal health data electronically in centralized, reliable and trusted repositories - so-called personal health record systems (PHR). At this stage PHR systems still fail to satisfy the individual medical information needs of their users. Personalized recommendations could solve this problem. A first approach of integrating recommender system (RS) methodology into personal health records - termed health recommender system (HRS) - is presented. By exploitation of existing semantic networks like Wikipedia a health graph data structure is obtained. The data kept within such a graph represent health related concepts and are used to compute semantic distances among pairs of such concepts. A ranking procedure based on the health graph is outlined which enables a match between entries of a PHR system and health information artifacts. This way a PHR user will obtain individualized health information he might be interested in.

Accuracy and Adoption of Wearable Technology Used by Active Citizens: A Marathon Event Field Study.

Abstract: Background: Today, runners use wearable technology such as global positioning system (GPS)–enabled sport watches to track and optimize their training activities, for example, when participating in a road race event. For this purpose, an increasing amount of low-priced, consumer-oriented wearable devices are available. However, the variety of such devices is overwhelming. It is unclear which devices are used by active, healthy citizens and whether they can provide accurate tracking results in a diverse study population. No published literature has yet assessed the dissemination of wearable technology in such a cohort and related influencing factors. Objective: The aim of this study was 2-fold: (1) to determine the adoption of wearable technology by runners, especially “smart” devices and (2) to investigate on the accuracy of tracked distances as recorded by such devices. Methods: A pre-race survey was applied to assess which wearable technology was predominantly used by runners of different age, sex, and fitness level. A post-race survey was conducted to determine the accuracy of the devices that tracked the running course. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate whether age, sex, fitness level, or track distance were influencing factors. Recorded distances of different device categories were tested with a 2-sample t test against each other. Results: A total of 898 pre-race and 262 post-race surveys were completed. Most of the participants (approximately 75%) used wearable technology for training optimization and distance recording. Females (P=.02) and runners in higher age groups (50-59 years: P=.03; 60-69 years: P<.001; 70-79 year: P=.004) were less likely to use wearables. The mean of the track distances recorded by mobile phones with combined app (mean absolute error, MAE=0.35 km) and GPS-enabled sport watches (MAE=0.12 km) was significantly different (P=.002) for the half-marathon event. Conclusions: A great variety of vendors (n=36) and devices (n=156) were identified. Under real-world conditions, GPS-enabled devices, especially sport watches and mobile phones, were found to be accurate in terms of recorded course distances. [JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017;5(2):e24]

Technology Adoption, Motivational Aspects, and Privacy Concerns of Wearables in the German Running Community: Field Study

Abstract: Background: Despite the availability of a great variety of consumer-oriented wearable devices, perceived usefulness, user satisfaction, and privacy concerns have not been fully investigated in the field of wearable applications. It is not clear why healthy, active citizens equip themselves with wearable technology for running activities, and what privacy and data sharing features might influence their individual decisions. Objective: The primary aim of the study was to shed light on motivational and privacy aspects of wearable technology used by healthy, active citizens. A secondary aim was to reevaluate smart technology adoption within the running community in Germany in 2017 and to compare it with the results of other studies and our own study from 2016. Methods: A questionnaire was designed to assess what wearable technology is used by runners of different ages and sex. Data on motivational factors were also collected. The survey was conducted at a regional road race event in May 2017, paperless via a self-implemented app. The demographic parameters of the sample cohort were compared with the event’s official starter list. In addition, the validation included comparison with demographic parameters of the largest German running events in Berlin, Hamburg, and Frankfurt/Main. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate whether age, sex, or course distance were associated with device use. The same method was applied to analyze whether a runner’s age was predictive of privacy concerns, openness to voluntary data sharing, and level of trust in one’s own body for runners not using wearables (ie, technological assistance considered unnecessary in this group). Results: A total of 845 questionnaires were collected. Use of technology for activity monitoring during events or training was prevalent (73.0%, 617/845) in this group. Male long-distance runners and runners in younger age groups (30-39 years: odds ratio [OR] 2.357, 95% CI 1.378-4.115; 40-49 years: OR 1.485, 95% CI 0.920-2.403) were more likely to use tracking devices, with ages 16 to 29 years as the reference group (OR 1). Where wearable technology was used, 42.0% (259/617) stated that they were not concerned if data might be shared by a device vendor without their consent. By contrast, 35.0% (216/617) of the participants would not accept this. In the case of voluntary sharing, runners preferred to exchange tracked data with friends (51.7%, 319/617), family members (43.4%, 268/617), or a physician (32.3%, 199/617). A large proportion (68.0%, 155/228) of runners not using technology stated that they preferred to trust what their own body was telling them rather than trust a device or an app (50-59 years: P<.001; 60-69 years: P=.008). Conclusions: A total of 136 distinct devices by 23 vendors or manufacturers and 17 running apps were identified. Out of 4, 3 runners (76.8%, 474/617) always trusted in the data tracked by their personal device. Data privacy concerns do, however, exist in the German running community, especially for older age groups (30-39 years: OR 1.041, 95% CI 0.371-0.905; 40-49 years: OR 1.421, 95% CI 0.813-2.506; 50-59 years: OR 2.076, 95% CI 1.813-3.686; 60-69 years: OR 2.394, 95% CI 0.957-6.183).

Features of Mobile Diabetes Applications: Review of the Literature and Analysis of Current Applications Compared Against Evidence-Based Guidelines

Abstract: Background: Interest in mobile health (mHealth) applications for self-management of diabetes is growing. In July 2009, we found 60 diabetes applications on iTunes for iPhone; by February 2011 the number had increased by more than 400% to 260. Other mobile platforms reflect a similar trend. Despite the growth, research on both the design and the use of diabetes mHealth applications is scarce. Furthermore, the potential influence of social media on diabetes mHealth applications is largely unexplored. Objective: Our objective was to study the salient features of mobile applications for diabetes care, in contrast to clinical guideline recommendations for diabetes self-management. These clinical guidelines are published by health authorities or associations such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom and the American Diabetes Association. Methods: We searched online vendor markets (online stores for Apple iPhone, Google Android, BlackBerry, and Nokia Symbian), journal databases, and gray literature related to diabetes mobile applications. We included applications that featured a component for self-monitoring of blood glucose and excluded applications without English-language user interfaces, as well as those intended exclusively for health care professionals. We surveyed the following features: (1) self-monitoring: (1.1) blood glucose, (1.2) weight, (1.3) physical activity, (1.4) diet, (1.5) insulin and medication, and (1.6) blood pressure, (2) education, (3) disease-related alerts and reminders, (4) integration of social media functions, (5) disease-related data export and communication, and (6) synchronization with personal health record (PHR) systems or patient portals. We then contrasted the prevalence of these features with guideline recommendations. Results: The search resulted in 973 matches, of which 137 met the selection criteria. The four most prevalent features of the applications available on the online markets (n = 101) were (1) insulin and medication recording, 63 (62%), (2) data export and communication, 61 (60%), (3) diet recording, 47 (47%), and (4) weight management, 43 (43%). From the literature search (n = 26), the most prevalent features were (1) PHR or Web server synchronization, 18 (69%), (2) insulin and medication recording, 17 (65%), (3) diet recording, 17 (65%), and (4) data export and communication, 16 (62%). Interestingly, although clinical guidelines widely refer to the importance of education, this is missing from the top functionalities in both cases. Conclusions: While a wide selection of mobile applications seems to be available for people with diabetes, this study shows there are obvious gaps between the evidence-based recommendations and the functionality used in study interventions or found in online markets. Current results confirm personalized education as an underrepresented feature in diabetes mobile applications. We found no studies evaluating social media concepts in diabetes self-management on mobile devices, and its potential remains largely unexplored. [J Med Internet Res 2011;13(3):e65]

Health recommender systems: concepts, requirements, technical basics and challenges

Abstract: During the last decades huge amounts of data have been collected in clinical databases representing patients' health states (e.g., as laboratory results, treatment plans, medical reports). Hence, digital information available for patient-oriented decision making has increased drastically but is often scattered across different sites. As as solution, personal health record systems (PHRS) are meant to centralize an individual's health data and to allow access for the owner as well as for authorized health professionals. Yet, expert-oriented language, complex interrelations of medical facts and information overload in general pose major obstacles for patients to understand their own record and to draw adequate conclusions. In this context, recommender systems may supply patients with additional laymen-friendly information helping to better comprehend their health status as represented by their record. However, such systems must be adapted to cope with the specific requirements in the health domain in order to deliver highly relevant information for patients. They are referred to as health recommender systems (HRS). In this article we give an introduction to health recommender systems and explain why they are a useful enhancement to PHR solutions. Basic concepts and scenarios are discussed and a first implementation is presented. In addition, we outline an evaluation approach for such a system, which is supported by medical experts. The construction of a test collection for case-related recommendations is described. Finally, challenges and open issues are discussed.

Topics, Trends, and Sentiments of Tweets About the COVID-19 Pandemic: Temporal Infoveillance Study.

Abstract: Background: With restrictions on movement and stay-at-home orders in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic, social media platforms such as Twitter have become an outlet for users to express their concerns, opinions, and feelings about the pandemic. Individuals, health agencies, and governments are using Twitter to communicate about COVID-19. Objective: The aims of this study were to examine key themes and topics of English-language COVID-19–related tweets posted by individuals and to explore the trends and variations in how the COVID-19–related tweets, key topics, and associated sentiments changed over a period of time from before to after the disease was declared a pandemic. Methods: Building on the emergent stream of studies examining COVID-19–related tweets in English, we performed a temporal assessment covering the time period from January 1 to May 9, 2020, and examined variations in tweet topics and sentiment scores to uncover key trends. Combining data from two publicly available COVID-19 tweet data sets with those obtained in our own search, we compiled a data set of 13.9 million English-language COVID-19–related tweets posted by individuals. We use guided latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to infer themes and topics underlying the tweets, and we used VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary and sEntiment Reasoner) sentiment analysis to compute sentiment scores and examine weekly trends for 17 weeks. Results: Topic modeling yielded 26 topics, which were grouped into 10 broader themes underlying the COVID-19–related tweets. Of the 13,937,906 examined tweets, 2,858,316 (20.51%) were about the impact of COVID-19 on the economy and markets, followed by spread and growth in cases (2,154,065, 15.45%), treatment and recovery (1,831,339, 13.14%), impact on the health care sector (1,588,499, 11.40%), and governments response (1,559,591, 11.19%). Average compound sentiment scores were found to be negative throughout the examined time period for the topics of spread and growth of cases, symptoms, racism, source of the outbreak, and political impact of COVID-19. In contrast, we saw a reversal of sentiments from negative to positive for prevention, impact on the economy and markets, government response, impact on the health care industry, and treatment and recovery. Conclusions: Identification of dominant themes, topics, sentiments, and changing trends in tweets about the COVID-19 pandemic can help governments, health care agencies, and policy makers frame appropriate responses to prevent and control the spread of the pandemic.

The role of mHealth for improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

Abstract: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and a key barrier to improved outcomes is medication non-adherence. The aim of this study is to review the role of mobile health (mHealth) tools for improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease. We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials that primarily investigated mHealth tools for improving adherence to cardiovascular disease medications in patients with hypertension, coronary artery disease, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, and stroke. We extracted and reviewed data on the types of mHealth tools used, preferences of patients and healthcare providers, the effect of the mHealth interventions on medication adherence, and the limitations of trials. We identified 10 completed trials matching our selection criteria, mostly with <100 participants, and ranging in duration from 1 to 18 months. mHealth tools included text messages, Bluetooth-enabled electronic pill boxes, online messaging platforms, and interactive voice calls. Patients and healthcare providers generally preferred mHealth to other interventions. All 10 studies reported that mHealth interventions improved medication adherence, though the magnitude of benefit was not consistently large and in one study was not greater than a telehealth comparator. Limitations of trials included small sample sizes, short duration of follow-up, self-reported outcomes, and insufficient assessment of unintended harms and financial implications. Current evidence suggests that mHealth tools can improve medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular diseases. However, high-quality clinical trials of sufficient size and duration are needed to move the field forward and justify use in routine care.