In this issue, we focus on the timely need to communicate best practices and practical, robust applications of designing and evaluating health data visualizations for lay audiences. We define lay audiences as those interacting with informatics tools in a non-professional capacity (eg, patients, caregivers, community members, research participants), as they may have distinct needs from health professionals. Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act incentivized the utilization of clinical informatics systems, the volume of health data that learning health systems are collecting and aggregating on patients has grown exponentially. Patients are also generating their own data through digital health tools that they and the health system want to leverage to improve health. In parallel with vast quantities of data, the 21st Century Cures Act requires that electronic health information be freely accessible and authorizes penalties for those who block data from patients. There are also non-clinical streams of data (eg, environmental exposure, disease transmission) that are increasingly accessible to the public. Though barriers to accessing data are being lifted, the data are often available in a raw format that is rarely comprehensible without a significant amount of pre-processing. Once processed, data may still require contextualization to the person or the community of interest to make it actionable. Therefore, the development and evaluation of visualizations of health data for lay audiences is an important area of inquiry.

Interactive data visualization can be a viable way to discover patterns in patient-generated health data and enable health behavior changes. However, very few studies have investigated the design and usability of such data visualization. The present study aimed to (1) explore user experiences with sleep data visualizations in the Fitbit app, and (2) focus on end users' perspectives to identify areas of improvement and potential solutions. The study recruited eighteen pre-medicine college students, who wore Fitbit watches for a two-week sleep data collection period and participated in an exit semi-structured interview to share their experience. A focus group was conducted subsequently to ideate potential solutions. The qualitative analysis identified six pain points (PPs) from the interview data using affinity mapping. Four design solutions were proposed by the focus group to address these PPs and illustrated by a set of mock-ups. The study findings informed four design considerations: (1) usability, (2) transparency and explainability, (3) understandability and actionability, and (4) individualized benchmarking. Further research is needed to examine the design guidelines and best practices of sleep data visualization, to create well-designed visualizations for the general population that enables health behavior changes.

OBJECTIVE: Modern health care requires patients, staff, and equipment to navigate complex environments to deliver quality care efficiently. Real-time locating systems (RTLS) are local tracking systems that identify the physical locations of personnel and equipment in real time. Applications and analytic strategies to utilize RTLS-produced data are still under development. The objectives of this systematic review were to describe and analyze the key features of RTLS applications and demonstrate their potential to improve care delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and IEEE following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were articles that utilize RTLS to evaluate or influence workflow in a healthcare setting. We summarized aspects of relevant articles, identified key themes in the challenges of applying RTLS to workflow improvement, and thematically reviewed the state of quantitative analytic methodologies. RESULTS: We included 42 articles in the final qualitative synthesis. The most frequent study design was observational (n = 24), followed by descriptive (n = 12) and experimental (n = 6). The most common clinical environment for study was the emergency department (n = 12), followed by entire hospital (n = 7) and surgical ward (n = 6). DISCUSSION: The focus of studies changed over time from early experience to optimization to evaluation of an established system. Common narrative themes highlighted lessons learned regarding evaluation, implementation, and information visibility. Few studies have developed quantitative techniques to effectively analyze RTLS data. CONCLUSIONS: RTLS is a useful and effective adjunct methodology in process and quality improvement, workflow analysis, and patient safety. Future directions should focus on developing enhanced analysis to meaningfully interpret RTLS data.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports results from a systematic literature review related to the evaluation of data visualizations and visual analytics technologies within the health informatics domain. The review aims to (1) characterize the variety of evaluation methods used within the health informatics community and (2) identify best practices. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed searches were conducted in February 2017 using search terms representing key concepts of interest: health care settings, visualization, and evaluation. References were also screened for eligibility. Data were extracted from included studies and analyzed using a PICOS framework: Participants, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study Design. RESULTS: After screening, 76 publications met the review criteria. Publications varied across all PICOS dimensions. The most common audience was healthcare providers (n = 43), and the most common data gathering methods were direct observation (n = 30) and surveys (n = 27). About half of the publications focused on static, concentrated views of data with visuals (n = 36). Evaluations were heterogeneous regarding setting and measurements used. DISCUSSION: When evaluating data visualizations and visual analytics technologies, a variety of approaches have been used. Usability measures were used most often in early (prototype) implementations, whereas clinical outcomes were most common in evaluations of operationally-deployed systems. These findings suggest opportunities for both (1) expanding evaluation practices, and (2) innovation with respect to evaluation methods for data visualizations and visual analytics technologies across health settings. CONCLUSION: Evaluation approaches are varied. New studies should adopt commonly reported metrics, context-appropriate study designs, and phased evaluation strategies.

OBJECTIVE: ClinicalTrials.gov serves critical functions of disseminating trial information to the public and helping the trials recruit participants. This study assessed the readability of trial descriptions at ClinicalTrials.gov using multiple quantitative measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis included all 165,988 trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as of April 30, 2014. To obtain benchmarks, the authors also analyzed 2 other medical corpora: (1) all 955 Health Topics articles from MedlinePlus and (2) a random sample of 100,000 clinician notes retrieved from an electronic health records system intended for conveying internal communication among medical professionals. The authors characterized each of the corpora using 4 surface metrics, and then applied 5 different scoring algorithms to assess their readability. The authors hypothesized that clinician notes would be most difficult to read, followed by trial descriptions and MedlinePlus Health Topics articles. RESULTS: Trial descriptions have the longest average sentence length (26.1 words) across all corpora; 65% of their words used are not covered by a basic medical English dictionary. In comparison, average sentence length of MedlinePlus Health Topics articles is 61% shorter, vocabulary size is 95% smaller, and dictionary coverage is 46% higher. All 5 scoring algorithms consistently rated CliniclTrials.gov trial descriptions the most difficult corpus to read, even harder than clinician notes. On average, it requires 18 years of education to properly understand these trial descriptions according to the results generated by the readability assessment algorithms. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Trial descriptions at CliniclTrials.gov are extremely difficult to read. Significant work is warranted to improve their readability in order to achieve CliniclTrials.gov's goal of facilitating information dissemination and subject recruitment.