Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association最新文献

Objectives: The goal of this case report is to detail experiences and challenges experienced in the training of Primary Care residents in secondary analysis using All of Us Researcher Workbench. At our large, urban safety net hospital, Primary Care/Internal Medicine residents in their third year undergo a research intensive block, the Research Practicum, where they work as a team to conduct secondary data analysis on a dataset with faculty facilitation. In 2023, this research block focused on use of the All of Us Researcher Workbench for secondary data analysis.

Materials and methods: Two groups of 5 residents underwent training to access the All of Us Researcher Workbench, and each group explored available data with a faculty facilitator and generated original research questions. Two blocks of residents successfully completed their research blocks and created original presentations on "social isolation and A1C" levels and "medical discrimination and diabetes management."

Results: Departmental faculty were satisfied with the depth of learning and data exploration. In focus groups, some residents noted that for those without interest in performing research, the activity felt extraneous to their career goals, while others were glad for the opportunity to publish. In both blocks, residents highlighted dissatisfaction with the degree to which the All of Us Researcher Workbench was representative of patients they encounter in a large safety net hospital.

Discussion: Using the All of Us Researcher Workbench provided residents with an opportunity to explore novel questions in a massive data source. Many residents however noted that because the population described in the All of Us Researcher Workbench appeared to be more highly educated and less racially diverse than patients they encounter in their practice, research may be hard to generalize in a community health context. Additionally, given that the data required knowledge of 1 of 2 code-based data analysis languages (R or Python) and work within an idiosyncratic coding environment, residents were heavily reliant on a faculty facilitator to assist with analysis.

Conclusion: Using the All of Us Researcher Workbench for research training allowed residents to explore novel questions and gain first-hand exposure to opportunities and challenges in secondary data analysis.

Objectives: Integration of social determinants of health into health outcomes research will allow researchers to study health inequities. The All of Us Research Program has the potential to be a rich source of social determinants of health data. However, user-friendly recommendations for scoring and interpreting the All of Us Social Determinants of Health Survey are needed to return value to communities through advancing researcher competencies in use of the All of Us Research Hub Researcher Workbench. We created a user guide aimed at providing researchers with an overview of the Social Determinants of Health Survey, recommendations for scoring and interpreting participant responses, and readily executable R and Python functions.

Target audience: This user guide targets registered users of the All of Us Research Hub Researcher Workbench, a cloud-based platform that supports analysis of All of Us data, who are currently conducting or planning to conduct analyses using the Social Determinants of Health Survey.

Scope: We introduce 14 constructs evaluated as part of the Social Determinants of Health Survey and summarize construct operationalization. We offer 30 literature-informed recommendations for scoring participant responses and interpreting scores, with multiple options available for 8 of the constructs. Then, we walk through example R and Python functions for relabeling responses and scoring constructs that can be directly implemented in Jupyter Notebook or RStudio within the Researcher Workbench. Full source code is available in supplemental files and GitHub. Finally, we discuss psychometric considerations related to the Social Determinants of Health Survey for researchers.

Importance and objective: Identifying sources of sex-based disparities is the first step in improving clinical outcomes for female patients. Using All of Us data, we examined the association of biological sex with cost-related medication adherence (CRMA) issues in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities.

Materials and methods: Retrospective data collection identified the following patients: 18 and older, completing personal medical history surveys, having hypertension (HTN), ischemic heart disease (IHD), or heart failure (HF) with medication use history consistent with these diagnoses. Implementing univariable and adjusted logistic regression, we assessed the influence of biological sex on 7 different patient-reported CRMA outcomes within HTN, IHD, and HF patients.

Results: Our study created cohorts of HTN (n = 3891), IHD (n = 5373), and HF (n = 2151) patients having CRMA outcomes data. Within each cohort, females were significantly more likely to report various cost-related medication issues: being unable to afford medications (HTN hazards ratio [HR]: 1.68, confidence interval [CI]: 1.33-2.13; IHD HR: 2.33, CI: 1.72-3.16; HF HR: 1.82, CI: 1.22-2.71), skipping doses (HTN HR: 1.76, CI: 1.30-2.39; IHD HR: 2.37, CI: 1.69-3.64; HF HR: 3.15, CI: 1.87-5.31), taking less medication (HTN HR: 1.86, CI: 1.37-2.45; IHD HR: 2.22, CI: 1.53-3.22; HF HR: 2.99, CI: 1.78-5.02), delaying filling prescriptions (HTN HR: 1.83, CI: 1.43-2.39; IHD HR: 2.02, CI: 1.48-2.77; HF HR: 2.99, CI: 1.79-5.03), and asking for lower cost medications (HTN HR: 1.41, CI: 1.16-1.72; IHD HR: 1.75, CI: 1.37-2.22; HF HR: 1.61, CI: 1.14-2.27).

Discussion and conclusion: Our results clearly demonstrate CRMA issues disproportionately affect female patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which may contribute to the larger sex-based disparities in cardiovascular care. These findings call for targeted interventions and strategies to address these disparities and ensure equitable access to cardiovascular medications and care for all patients.

Objectives: Research participants value learning how their data contributions are advancing health research (ie, data stories). The All of Us Research Program gathered insights from program staff to learn what research topics they think are of interest to participants, what support staff need to communicate data stories, and how staff use data story dissemination tools.

Materials and methods: Using an online 25-item assessment, we collected information from All of Us staff at 7 Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Results: Topics of greatest interest or relevance included income insecurity (83%), diabetes (78%), and mental health (78%). Respondents prioritized in-person outreach in the community (70%) as a preferred setting to share data stories. Familiarity with available dissemination tools varied.

Discussion: Responses support prioritizing materials for in-person outreach and training staff how to use dissemination tools.

Conclusion: The findings will inform All of Us communication strategy, content, materials, and staff training resources to effectively deliver data stories as return of value to participants.

Objective: The NIH All of Us Research Program aims to advance personalized medicine by not only linking patient records, surveys, and genomic data but also engaging with participants, particularly from groups traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research (UBR). This study details how the dialogue between scientists and community members, including many from communities of color, shaped local research priorities.

Materials and methods: We recruited area quantitative, basic, and clinical scientists as well as community members from our Community and Participant Advisory Boards with a predetermined interest in All of Us research as members of a Special Interest Group (SIG). An expert community engagement scientist facilitated 6 SIG meetings over the year, explicitly fostering openness and flexibility during conversations. We qualitatively analyzed discussions using a social movement framework tailored for community-based participatory research (CBPR) mobilization.

Results: The SIG evolved through CBPR stages of emergence, coalescence, momentum, and maintenance/integration. Researchers prioritized community needs above personal academic interests while community members kept discussions focused on tangible return of value to communities. One key outcome includes SIG-driven shifts in programmatic and research priorities of the All of Us Research Program in Southeastern Wisconsin. One major challenge was building equitable conversations that balanced scientific rigor and community understanding.

Discussion: Our approach allowed for a rich dialogue to emerge. Points of connection and disconnection between community members and scientists offered important guidance for emerging areas of genomic inquiry.

Conclusion: Our study presents a robust foundation for future efforts to engage diverse communities in CBPR, particularly on healthcare concerns affecting UBR communities.

Objectives: The All of Us Research Program harnesses advances in technology, science, and engagement for precision medicine research. We describe informatics innovations which support that goal and return value to the participant cohort and community.

Materials and methods: Research data from the All of Us Research Program are available to authorized users on the All of Us Researcher Workbench. We describe the technical infrastructure that enables data access and usage for researchers. Participants are considered partners. To ensure return of value, we outline participant access to information.

Results: The All of Us Research Hub allows broad access to data, regardless of background. The innovations described are rooted in the program's core values: participation is open and reflects the diversity of the United States; participants are partners and have access to their information; transparency, security, and privacy are of the highest importance; data are broadly accessible; and the program promotes positive change. We assess research impact and reflect on how All of Us can increase existing return of value to participant communities through future informatics advancements.

Discussion: The program will continue to support efforts to ensure equitable access to data and return of value to participants. Looking ahead, we invite the community to join us.

Conclusion: All of Us research findings can change clinical care, inform guidelines, and set a new bar for data sharing. The ultimate return of value is better care for all.

Objectives: We introduce a widely applicable model-based approach for estimating individual-level Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) and evaluate its effectiveness using the All of Us Research Program.

Materials and methods: Our approach utilizes aggregated SDoH datasets to estimate individual-level SDoH, demonstrated with examples of no high school diploma (NOHSDP) and no health insurance (UNINSUR) variables. Models are estimated using American Community Survey data and applied to derive individual-level estimates for All of Us participants. We assess concordance between model-based SDoH estimates and self-reported SDoHs in All of Us and examine associations with undiagnosed hypertension and diabetes.

Results: Compared to self-reported SDoHs, the area under the curve for NOHSDP is 0.727 (95% CI, 0.724-0.730) and for UNINSUR is 0.730 (95% CI, 0.727-0.733) among the 329 074 All of Us participants, both significantly higher than aggregated SDoHs. The association between model-based NOHSDP and undiagnosed hypertension is concordant with those estimated using self-reported NOHSDP, with a correlation coefficient of 0.649. Similarly, the association between model-based NOHSDP and undiagnosed diabetes is concordant with those estimated using self-reported NOHSDP, with a correlation coefficient of 0.900.

Discussion and conclusion: The model-based SDoH estimation method offers a scalable and easily standardized approach for estimating individual-level SDoHs. Using the All of Us dataset, we demonstrate reasonable concordance between model-based SDoH estimates and self-reported SDoHs, along with consistent associations with health outcomes. Our findings also underscore the critical role of geographic contexts in SDoH estimation and in evaluating the association between SDoHs and health outcomes.

Objectives: To illustrate the utility of the All of Us Research Program for studying military and veteran health.

Materials and methods: Results were derived from the All of Us Researcher Workbench Controlled Tier v7. Specific variables examined were family history of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), medical encounters, and body mass index/body size.

Results: There are 37 363 military and veteran participants enrolled in the All of Us Research Program. The population is older (M = 63.3 years), White (71.3%), and male (83.2%), consistent with military and veteran populations. Participants reported a high prevalence of PTSD (13.4%), obesity (40.2%), and abdominal obesity (77.1%).

Discussion and conclusion: The breadth and depth of health data from service members and veterans enrolled in the All of Us Research Program allow researchers to address pressing health questions in these populations. Future enrollment and data releases will make this an increasingly powerful and useful study for understanding military and veteran health.

Objective: This article outlines a scalable system developed by the All of Us Research Program's Genetic Counseling Resource to vet a large database of healthcare resources for supporting participants with health-related DNA results.

Materials and methods: After a literature review of established evaluation frameworks for health resources, we created SONAR, a 10-item framework and grading scale for health-related participant-facing resources. SONAR was used to review clinical resources that could be shared with participants during genetic counseling.

Results: Application of SONAR shortened resource approval time from 7 days to 1 day. About 256 resources were approved and 8 rejected through SONAR review. Most approved resources were relevant to participants nationwide (60.0%). The most common resource types were related to support groups (20%), cancer care (30.6%), and general educational resources (12.4%). All of Us genetic counselors provided 1161 approved resources during 3005 (38.6%) consults, mainly to local genetic counselors (29.9%), support groups (21.9%), and educational resources (21.0%).

Discussion: SONAR's systematic method simplifies resource vetting for healthcare providers, easing the burden of identifying and evaluating credible resources. Compiling these resources into a user-friendly database allows providers to share these resources efficiently, better equipping participants to complete follow up actions from health-related DNA results.

Conclusion: The All of Us Genetic Counseling Resource connects participants receiving health-related DNA results with relevant follow-up resources on a high-volume, national level. This has been made possible by the creation of a novel resource database and validation system.