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

• Published in: Journal of medical Internet research Vol. 24; no. 4; p. e33537
• Main Authors: Olaye, Iredia M, Belovsky, Mia P, Bataille, Lauren, Cheng, Royce, Ciger, Ali, Fortuna, Karen L, Izmailova, Elena S, McCall, Debbe, Miller, Christopher J, Muehlhausen, Willie, Northcott, Carrie A, Rodriguez-Chavez, Isaac R, Pratap, Abhishek, Vandendriessche, Benjamin, Zisman-Ilani, Yaara, Bakker, Jessie P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada Journal of Medical Internet Research 14.04.2022; Gunther Eysenbach MD MPH, Associate Professor; JMIR Publications
• Subjects: Adherence; Algorithms; Biometrics; Biometry - methods; Cimetidine; Clinical research; Clinical trials; Data Collection; Humans; Intervention; Laboratories; Measurement; Medical screening; Patient compliance; Physiology; Population; Research Design; Review; Sensors; Subject heading schemes; Systematic review; Technology; digital medicine; adherence; compliance; mobile phone; digital measures
• ISSN: 1438-8871; 1439-4456; 1438-8871
• DOI: 10.2196/33537

Suboptimal adherence to data collection procedures or a study intervention is often the cause of a failed clinical trial. Data from connected sensors, including wearables, referred to here as biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs), are capable of capturing 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. We aim 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. We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2014 and 2019, which deployed a BioMeT outside the clinical or laboratory setting for which a quantitative, nonsurrogate, sensor-based measurement of adherence was reported. After systematically screening the manuscripts for eligibility, we extracted details regarding study design, participants, the BioMeT or BioMeTs used, and the definition and units of adherence. The 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). Our PubMed search terms identified 940 manuscripts; 100 (10.6%) met our eligibility criteria and contained descriptions of 110 BioMeTs. During literature screening, we found that 30% (53/177) of the studies that used a BioMeT outside of the clinical or laboratory setting failed to report a sensor-based, nonsurrogate, quantitative measurement of adherence. We identified 37 unique definitions of adherence reported for the 110 BioMeTs and observed that 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% (46/50) of the tools. However, when adherence data were simplified to a categorical variable, we observed 25 unique definitions of adherence reported for 37 tools. We recommend that quantitative, nonsurrogate, sensor-based adherence data be reported for all BioMeTs when feasible; a clear description of the sensor or sensors used to capture adherence data, the algorithm or algorithms that convert sample-level measurements to a metric of adherence, and the analytic validation data demonstrating that BioMeT-generated adherence is an accurate and reliable measurement of actual use be provided when available; and 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.