Data as symptom: Doctors' responses to patient-provided data in general practice.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1177/03063127231164345
Christoffer Bjerre Haase, Rola Ajjawi, Margaret Bearman, John Brandt Brodersen, Torsten Risor, Klaus Hoeyer
{"title":"Data as symptom: Doctors' responses to patient-provided data in general practice.","authors":"Christoffer Bjerre Haase,&nbsp;Rola Ajjawi,&nbsp;Margaret Bearman,&nbsp;John Brandt Brodersen,&nbsp;Torsten Risor,&nbsp;Klaus Hoeyer","doi":"10.1177/03063127231164345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People are increasingly able to generate their own health data through new technologies such as wearables and online symptom checkers. However, generating data is one thing, interpreting them another. General practitioners (GPs) are likely to be the first to help with interpretations. Policymakers in the European Union are investing heavily in infrastructures to provide GPs access to patient measurements. But there may be a disconnect between policy ambitions and the everyday practices of GPs. To investigate this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 Danish GPs. According to the GPs, patients relatively rarely bring data to them. GPs mostly remember three types of patient-generated data that patients bring to them for interpretation: heart and sleep measurements from wearables and results from online symptom checkers. However, they also spoke extensively about data work with patient queries concerning measurements from the GPs' own online Patient Reported Outcome system and online access to laboratory results. We juxtapose GP reflections on these five data types and between policy ambitions and everyday practices. These data require substantial recontextualization work before the GPs ascribe them evidential value and act on them. Even when they perceived as actionable, patient-provided data are not approached as measurements, as suggested by policy frameworks. Rather, GPs treat them as analogous to symptoms-that is to say, GPs treat patient-provided data as subjective evidence rather than authoritative measures. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature,we suggest that GPs must be part of the conversation with policy makers and digital entrepreneurs around when and how to integrate patient-generated data into healthcare infrastructures.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":"53 4","pages":"522-544"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/21/84/10.1177_03063127231164345.PMC10363926.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231164345","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People are increasingly able to generate their own health data through new technologies such as wearables and online symptom checkers. However, generating data is one thing, interpreting them another. General practitioners (GPs) are likely to be the first to help with interpretations. Policymakers in the European Union are investing heavily in infrastructures to provide GPs access to patient measurements. But there may be a disconnect between policy ambitions and the everyday practices of GPs. To investigate this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 Danish GPs. According to the GPs, patients relatively rarely bring data to them. GPs mostly remember three types of patient-generated data that patients bring to them for interpretation: heart and sleep measurements from wearables and results from online symptom checkers. However, they also spoke extensively about data work with patient queries concerning measurements from the GPs' own online Patient Reported Outcome system and online access to laboratory results. We juxtapose GP reflections on these five data types and between policy ambitions and everyday practices. These data require substantial recontextualization work before the GPs ascribe them evidential value and act on them. Even when they perceived as actionable, patient-provided data are not approached as measurements, as suggested by policy frameworks. Rather, GPs treat them as analogous to symptoms-that is to say, GPs treat patient-provided data as subjective evidence rather than authoritative measures. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature,we suggest that GPs must be part of the conversation with policy makers and digital entrepreneurs around when and how to integrate patient-generated data into healthcare infrastructures.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数据作为症状:医生对病人提供的数据的反应。
人们越来越有能力通过可穿戴设备和在线症状检查器等新技术生成自己的健康数据。然而,生成数据是一回事,解释数据是另一回事。全科医生(gp)可能是第一个帮助解释的人。欧盟的政策制定者正在大力投资基础设施,使全科医生能够获得患者的测量结果。但在政策抱负和全科医生的日常实践之间可能存在脱节。为了调查这一点,我们对23名丹麦全科医生进行了半结构化访谈。根据全科医生的说法,病人很少向他们提供数据。全科医生通常会记住患者提供给他们的三种类型的数据:来自可穿戴设备的心脏和睡眠测量数据,以及来自在线症状检查器的结果。然而,他们也广泛地谈到了数据工作,患者询问来自全科医生自己的在线患者报告结果系统的测量结果,以及在线访问实验室结果。我们将GP对这五种数据类型的反思,以及政策抱负与日常实践之间的对比并置。在全科医生认为这些数据具有证据价值并据此采取行动之前,这些数据需要大量的重新背景化工作。即使患者提供的数据被认为是可采取行动的,也没有像政策框架所建议的那样,将其作为衡量标准。相反,全科医生把它们当作类似于症状的东西来对待——也就是说,全科医生把病人提供的数据当作主观证据,而不是权威的衡量标准。根据科学技术研究(STS)文献,我们建议全科医生必须与政策制定者和数字企业家就何时以及如何将患者生成的数据整合到医疗基础设施中进行对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Wake effects and temperature plumes: Coping with non-knowledge in the expansion of wind and geothermal energy. Population curation: The construction of mutual obligation between individual and state in Danish precision medicine. Hearts and minds: The technopolitical role of affect in sociotechnical imaginaries. Cells and the city: The rise and fall of urban biopolitics in San Francisco, 1970-2020. What work does ‘contamination’ do? An agential realist account of oil wastewater and radium in groundwater
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1