Michael P. Massagli

Sharing Health Data for Better Outcomes on PatientsLikeMe

Background PatientsLikeMe is an online quantitative personal research platform for patients with life-changing illnesses to share their experience using patient-reported outcomes, find other patients like them matched on demographic and clinical characteristics, and learn from the aggregated data reports of others to improve their outcomes. The goal of the website is to help patients answer the question: “Given my status, what is the best outcome I can hope to achieve, and how do I get there?” Objective Using a cross-sectional online survey, we sought to describe the potential benefits of PatientsLikeMe in terms of treatment decisions, symptom management, clinical management, and outcomes. Methods Almost 7,000 members from six PatientsLikeMe communities (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS], Multiple Sclerosis [MS], Parkinson’s Disease, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], fibromyalgia, and mood disorders) were sent a survey invitation using an internal survey tool (PatientsLikeMe Lens). Results Complete responses were received from 1323 participants (19% of invited members). Between-group demographics varied according to disease community. Users perceived the greatest benefit in learning about a symptom they had experienced; 72% (952 of 1323) rated the site “moderately” or “very helpful.” Patients also found the site helpful for understanding the side effects of their treatments (n = 757, 57%). Nearly half of patients (n = 559, 42%) agreed that the site had helped them find another patient who had helped them understand what it was like to take a specific treatment for their condition. More patients found the site helpful with decisions to start a medication (n = 496, 37%) than to change a medication (n = 359, 27%), change a dosage (n = 336, 25%), or stop a medication (n = 290, 22%). Almost all participants (n = 1,249, 94%) were diagnosed when they joined the site. Most (n = 824, 62%) experienced no change in their confidence in that diagnosis or had an increased level of confidence (n = 456, 34%). Use of the site was associated with increasing levels of comfort in sharing personal health information among those who had initially been uncomfortable. Overall, 12% of patients (n = 151 of 1320) changed their physician as a result of using the site; this figure was doubled in patients with fibromyalgia (21%, n = 33 of 150). Patients reported community-specific benefits: 41% of HIV patients (n = 72 of 177) agreed they had reduced risky behaviors and 22% of mood disorders patients (n = 31 of 141) agreed they needed less inpatient care as a result of using the site. Analysis of the Web access logs showed that participants who used more features of the site (eg, posted in the online forum) perceived greater benefit. Conclusions We have established that members of the community reported a range of benefits, and that these may be related to the extent of site use. Third party validation and longitudinal evaluation is an important next step in continuing to evaluate the potential of online data-sharing platforms.

Social Uses of Personal Health Information Within PatientsLikeMe, an Online Patient Community: What Can Happen When Patients Have Access to One Another’s Data

Background This project investigates the ways in which patients respond to the shared use of what is often considered private information: personal health data. There is a growing demand for patient access to personal health records. The predominant model for this record is a repository of all clinically relevant health information kept securely and viewed privately by patients and their health care providers. While this type of record does seem to have beneficial effects for the patient–physician relationship, the complexity and novelty of these data coupled with the lack of research in this area means the utility of personal health information for the primary stakeholders—the patients—is not well documented or understood. Objective PatientsLikeMe is an online community built to support information exchange between patients. The site provides customized disease-specific outcome and visualization tools to help patients understand and share information about their condition. We begin this paper by describing the components and design of the online community. We then identify and analyze how users of this platform reference personal health information within patient-to-patient dialogues. Methods Patients diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) post data on their current treatments, symptoms, and outcomes. These data are displayed graphically within personal health profiles and are reflected in composite community-level symptom and treatment reports. Users review and discuss these data within the Forum, private messaging, and comments posted on each other’s profiles. We analyzed member communications that referenced individual-level personal health data to determine how patient peers use personal health information within patient-to-patient exchanges. Results Qualitative analysis of a sample of 123 comments (about 2% of the total) posted within the community revealed a variety of commenting and questioning behaviors by patient members. Members referenced data to locate others with particular experiences to answer specific health-related questions, to proffer personally acquired disease-management knowledge to those most likely to benefit from it, and to foster and solidify relationships based on shared concerns. Conclusions Few studies examine the use of personal health information by patients themselves. This project suggests how patients who choose to explicitly share health data within a community may benefit from the process, helping them engage in dialogues that may inform disease self-management. We recommend that future designs make each patient’s health information as clear as possible, automate matching of people with similar conditions and using similar treatments, and integrate data into online platforms for health conversations.

Linguistic and cultural barriers to care.

AbstractCONTEXT: Primarily because of immigration, Asian Americans are one of the fastest growing and most ethnically diverse minority groups in the United States. However, little is known about their perspectives on health care quality. OBJECTIVE: To examine factors contributing to quality of care from the perspective of Chinese- and Vietnamese-American patients with limited English language skills. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups and content analysis to determine domains of quality of care. SETTING: Four community health centers in Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 122 Chinese- and Vietnamese-American patients were interviewed in focus groups by bilingual interviewers using a standardized, translated moderator guide. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Domains of quality of care mentioned by patients in verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: In addition to dimensions of health care quality commonly expressed by Caucasian, English-speaking patients in the United States, Chinese- and Vietnamese-American patients with limited English proficiency wanted to discuss the use of non-Western medical practices with their providers, but encountered significant barriers. They viewed providers’ knowledge, inquiry, and nonjudgmental acceptance of traditional Asian medical beliefs and practices as part of quality care. Patients also considered the quality of interpreter services to be very important. They preferred using professional interpreters rather than family members, and preferred gender-concordant translators. Furthermore, they expressed the need for help in navigating health care systems and obtaining support services. CONCLUSIONS: Cultural and linguistically appropriate health care services may lead to improved health care quality for Asian-American patients who have limited English language skills. Important aspects of quality include providers’ respect for traditional health beliefs and practices, access to professional interpreters, and assistance in obtaining social services.

Overrides of Medication Alerts in Ambulatory Care

BACKGROUND Electronic prescribing systems with decision support may improve patient safety in ambulatory care by offering drug allergy and drug interaction alerts. However, preliminary studies show that clinicians override most of these alerts. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis of 233 537 medication safety alerts generated by 2872 clinicians in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania who used a common electronic prescribing system from January 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. We used multivariate techniques to examine factors associated with alert acceptance. RESULTS A total of 6.6% of electronic prescription attempts generated alerts. Clinicians accepted 9.2% of drug interaction alerts and 23.0% of allergy alerts. High-severity interactions accounted for most alerts (61.6%); clinicians accepted high-severity alerts slightly more often than moderate- or low-severity interaction alerts (10.4%, 7.3%, and 7.1%, respectively; P < .001). Clinicians accepted 2.2% to 43.1% of high-severity interaction alerts, depending on the classes of interacting medications. In multivariable analyses, we found no difference in alert acceptance among clinicians of different specialties (P = .16). Clinicians were less likely to accept a drug interaction alert if the patient had previously received the alerted medication (odds ratio, 0.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.03). CONCLUSION Clinicians override most medication alerts, suggesting that current medication safety alerts may be inadequate to protect patient safety.

Accelerated clinical discovery using self-reported patient data collected online and a patient-matching algorithm

Patients with serious diseases may experiment with drugs that have not received regulatory approval. Online patient communities structured around quantitative outcome data have the potential to provide an observational environment to monitor such drug usage and its consequences. Here we describe an analysis of data reported on the website PatientsLikeMe by patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) who experimented with lithium carbonate treatment. To reduce potential bias owing to lack of randomization, we developed an algorithm to match 149 treated patients to multiple controls (447 total) based on the progression of their disease course. At 12 months after treatment, we found no effect of lithium on disease progression. Although observational studies using unblinded data are not a substitute for double-blind randomized control trials, this study reached the same conclusion as subsequent randomized trials, suggesting that data reported by patients over the internet may be useful for accelerating clinical discovery and evaluating the effectiveness of drugs already in use.

Providing High-Quality Care for Limited English Proficient Patients: The Importance of Language Concordance and Interpreter Use

BackgroundProvider–patient language discordance is related to worse quality care for limited English proficient (LEP) patients who speak Spanish. However, little is known about language barriers among LEP Asian-American patients.ObjectiveWe examined the effects of language discordance on the degree of health education and the quality of interpersonal care that patients received, and examined its effect on patient satisfaction. We also evaluated how the presence/absence of a clinic interpreter affected these outcomes.DesignCross-sectional survey, response rate 74%.ParticipantsA total of 2,746 Chinese and Vietnamese patients receiving care at 11 health centers in 8 cities.MeasurementsProvider–patient language concordance, health education received, quality of interpersonal care, patient ratings of providers, and the presence/absence of a clinic interpreter. Regression analyses were used to adjust for potential confounding.ResultsPatients with language-discordant providers reported receiving less health education (β = 0.17, p < 0.05) compared to those with language-concordant providers. This effect was mitigated with the use of a clinic interpreter. Patients with language-discordant providers also reported worse interpersonal care (β = 0.28, p < 0.05), and were more likely to give low ratings to their providers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61; CI = 0.97–2.67). Using a clinic interpreter did not mitigate these effects and in fact exacerbated disparities in patients’ perceptions of their providers.ConclusionLanguage barriers are associated with less health education, worse interpersonal care, and lower patient satisfaction. Having access to a clinic interpreter can facilitate the transmission of health education. However, in terms of patients’ ratings of their providers and the quality of interpersonal care, having an interpreter present does not serve as a substitute for language concordance between patient and provider.

Interpreter services, language concordance, and health care quality. Experiences of Asian Americans with limited English proficiency.

AbstractBACKGROUND: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) have more difficulty communicating with health care providers and are less satisfied with their care than others. Both interpreter- and language-concordant clinicians may help overcome these problems but few studies have compared these approaches. OBJECTIVE: To compare self-reported communication and visit ratings for LEP Asian immigrants whose visits involve either a clinic interpreter or a clinician speaking their native language. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey—response rate 74%. PATIENTS: Two thousand seven hundred and fifteen LEP Chinese and Vietnamese immigrant adults who received care at 11 community-based health centers across the U.S. MEASUREMENTS: Five self-reported communication measures and overall rating of care. RESULTS: Patients who used interpreters were more likely than language-concordant patients to report having questions about their care (30.1% vs 20.9%, P<.001) or about mental health (25.3% vs 18.2%, P=.005) they wanted to ask but did not. They did not differ significantly in their response to 3 other communication measures or their likelihood of rating the health care received as “excellent” or “very good” (51.7% vs 50.9%, P=.8). Patients who rated their interpreters highly (“excellent” or “very good”) were more likely to rate the health care they received highly (adjusted odds ratio 4.8, 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 10.1). CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of communication and health care quality for outpatient visits are similar for LEP Asian immigrants who use interpreters and those whose clinicians speak their language. However, interpreter use may compromise certain aspects of communication. The perceived quality of the interpreter is strongly associated with patients’ assessments of quality of care overall.

HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PERSONS WITH ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Assessing health-related quality of life in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is extremely important, but most available scales are too long, contain items that are not relevant for such persons, or do not assess important signs and symptoms of HIV infection. This study presents a new set of scales for assessing the symptoms and functioning of persons infected with HIV and reports data on their reliability and validity collected in face-to-face interviews with 189 patients receiving primary care. This study also assesses the associations among systems, functional impairment, and global health assessments. The scales are easy to administer, are reliable, and serve as valid measures of quality of life. Fatigue, functional status, and average severity of all symptoms were the best predictors of overall perceived health status. Psychological well-being and perceived health status were the best predictors of overall perceived health status. Psychological well-being and perceived health status were the strongest correlates of life satisfaction. When assessing the health-related quality of life of persons infected with HIV, this study recommends utilizing a comprehensive set of measures that allows one to examine both discrete symptoms and the more diffuse impact of illness on functioning, mental health, and quality of life.

Concordance between site of onset and limb dominance in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Background Focality of onset of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is not understood. Attempts to implicate physical exercise in the aetiology of ALS have provided inconsistent results. If physical use of a limb were important in defining the site of onset, then handedness might be expected to influence the side of upper limb-onset disease and footedness likewise in lower limb-onset ALS. Methods ALS patients registered with an internet-based support site were invited to complete an online questionnaire concerning site of onset of symptoms and their dominant hand and foot. A binomial test of proportions was used to investigate the null hypothesis that handedness and footedness do not influence side of onset in upper and lower limb-onset ALS, respectively. Results 343 ALS patients with limb-onset disease were studied. For upper limb-onset patients, there was concordance for side of onset and handedness (64%; p<0.0006). For lower limb-onset patients, concordance for side of onset and footedness was absent. The frequency of left handedness was commensurate with that found in the general population. Interpretation These results are potentially consistent with the hypothesis that exercise influences pathogenesis in ALS since routine physical demands on the upper limb are heavily influenced by limb dominance, whereas in the lower limbs the commonest function is standing or locomotion, which uses both legs equally. However, there may also be an inherent cortical vulnerability underlying upper limb-onset laterality, possibly influenced by changes in neuronal connectivity and cortical excitability in relation to handedness and reflected by the “split hand” phenomenon consistently observed in ALS.

Perceived benefits of sharing health data between people with epilepsy on an online platform

An epilepsy community was developed on PatientsLikeMe.com to share data between patients to improve their outcomes by finding other patients like them. In a 14-day response period, 221 patients with epilepsy (mean age: 40 years, SD: 12, range: 17-72, 66% female) completed a survey about benefits they perceived. Prior to using the site, a third of respondents (30%) did not know anyone else with epilepsy with whom they could talk; of these, 63% now had at least one other patient with whom they could connect. Perceived benefits included: finding another patient experiencing the same symptoms (59%), gaining a better understanding of seizures (58%), and learning more about symptoms or treatments (55%). Number of benefits was associated with number of relationships with other patients, F(4,216)=8.173, P<0.001). Patients with epilepsy reported an array of perceived benefits similar to those reported by populations with other diseases. Controlled sharing of health data may have the potential to improve disease self-management of people with epilepsy.