OBJECTIVES: Digital health equity, the opportunity for all to engage with digital health tools to support good health outcomes, is an emerging priority across the world. The field of digital health equity would benefit from a comprehensive and systematic understanding of digital health, digital equity, and health equity, with a focus on real-world applications. We conducted a scoping review to identify and describe published frameworks and concepts relevant to digital health equity interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of published peer-reviewed literature guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. We searched 5 databases for frameworks related to or applied to digital health or equity interventions. Using deductive and inductive approaches, we analyzed frameworks and concepts based on the socio-ecological model. RESULTS: Of the 910 publications initially identified, we included 44 (4.8%) publications in our review that described 42 frameworks that sought to explain the ecosystem of digital and/or health equity, but none were comprehensive. From the frameworks we identified 243 concepts grouped into 43 categories including characteristics of individuals, communities, and organizations; societal context; perceived value of the intervention by and impacts on individuals, community members, and the organization; partnerships; and access to digital health services, in-person services, digital services, and data and information, among others. DISCUSSION: We suggest a consolidated definition of digital health equity, highlight illustrative frameworks, and suggest concepts that may be needed to enhance digital health equity intervention development and evaluation. CONCLUSION: The expanded understanding of frameworks and relevant concepts resulting from this study may inform communities and stakeholders who seek to achieve digital inclusion and digital health equity.

BACKGROUND: Health and healthcare are increasingly dependent on internet and digital solutions. Medically underserved communities that experience health disparities are often those who are burdened by digital disparities. While digital equity and digital health equity are national priorities, there is limited evidence about how community-based organizations (CBOs) consider and develop interventions. METHODS: We conducted key informant interviews in 2022 purposively recruiting from health and welfare organizations engaged in digital equity work. Nineteen individuals from 13 organizations serving rural and/or urban communities from the local to national level participated in semi-structured interviews via Zoom regarding their perspectives on digital health equity interventions. Directed content analysis of verbatim interview transcripts was conducted to identify themes. RESULTS: Themes emerged at individual, organizational, and societal levels. Individual level themes included potential benefits from digital health equity, internet access challenges, and the need for access to devices and digital literacy. Organizational level themes included leveraging community assets, promising organizational practices and challenges. For the societal level, the shifting complexity of the digital equity ecosystem, policy issues, and data for needs assessment and evaluation were described. Several example case studies describing these themes were provided. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Digital health equity interventions are complex, multi-level endeavors. Clear elucidation of the individual, organizational, and societal level factors that may impact digital health equity interventions are necessary to understanding if and how CBOs participate in such initiatives. This study presents unique perspectives directly from CBOs driving programs in this new arena of digital health equity.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a distributed, immutable, and highly available cross-cloud blockchain system to facilitate federated data analysis activities among multiple institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We preprocessed 9166 COVID-19 Structured Query Language (SQL) code, summary statistics, and user activity logs, from the GitHub repository of the Reliable Response Data Discovery for COVID-19 (R2D2) Consortium. The repository collected local summary statistics from participating institutions and aggregated the global result to a COVID-19-related clinical query, previously posted by clinicians on a website. We developed both on-chain and off-chain components to store/query these activity logs and their associated queries/results on a blockchain for immutability, transparency, and high availability of research communication. We measured run-time efficiency of contract deployment, network transactions, and confirmed the accuracy of recorded logs compared to a centralized baseline solution. RESULTS: The smart contract deployment took 4.5 s on an average. The time to record an activity log on blockchain was slightly over 2 s, versus 5-9 s for baseline. For querying, each query took on an average less than 0.4 s on blockchain, versus around 2.1 s for baseline. DISCUSSION: The low deployment, recording, and querying times confirm the feasibility of our cross-cloud, blockchain-based federated data analysis system. We have yet to evaluate the system on a larger network with multiple nodes per cloud, to consider how to accommodate a surge in activities, and to investigate methods to lower querying time as the blockchain grows. CONCLUSION: Blockchain technology can be used to support federated data analysis among multiple institutions.

OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to understand patient and researcher perspectives regarding consent and data-sharing preferences for research and a patient-centered system to manage consent and data-sharing preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted focus groups with patient and researcher participants recruited from three academic health centers via snowball sampling. Discussions focused on perspectives on the use of electronic health record (EHR) data for research. Themes were identified through consensus coding, starting from an exploratory framework. RESULTS: We held two focus groups with patients (n = 12 patients) and two with researchers (n = 8 researchers). We identified two patient themes (1-2), one theme common to patients and researchers (3), and two researcher themes (4-5). Themes included (1) motivations for sharing EHR data, (2) perspectives on the importance of data-sharing transparency, (3) individual control of personal EHR data sharing, (4) how EHR data benefits research, and (5) challenges researchers face using EHR data. DISCUSSION: Patients expressed a tension between the benefits of their data being used in studies to benefit themselves/others and avoiding risk by limiting data access. Patients resolved this tension by acknowledging they would often share their data but wanted greater transparency on its use. Researchers expressed concern about incorporating bias into datasets if patients opted out. CONCLUSIONS: A research consent and data-sharing platform must consider two competing goals: empowering patients to have more control over their data and maintaining the integrity of secondary data sources. Health systems and researchers should increase trust-building efforts with patients to engender trust in data access and use.

OBJECTIVE: To utilize, in an individual and institutional privacy-preserving manner, electronic health record (EHR) data from 202 hospitals by analyzing answers to COVID-19-related questions and posting these answers online. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a distributed, federated network of 12 health systems that harmonized their EHRs and submitted aggregate answers to consortia questions posted at https://www.covid19questions.org. Our consortium developed processes and implemented distributed algorithms to produce answers to a variety of questions. We were able to generate counts, descriptive statistics, and build a multivariate, iterative regression model without centralizing individual-level data. RESULTS: Our public website contains answers to various clinical questions, a web form for users to ask questions in natural language, and a list of items that are currently pending responses. The results show, for example, that patients who were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, within the year before admission, had lower unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates. We also showed that, when adjusted for, age, sex, and ethnicity were not significantly associated with mortality. We demonstrated that it is possible to answer questions about COVID-19 using EHR data from systems that have different policies and must follow various regulations, without moving data out of their health systems. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We present an alternative or a complement to centralized COVID-19 registries of EHR data. We can use multivariate distributed logistic regression on observations recorded in the process of care to generate results without transferring individual-level data outside the health systems.

The COVID-19 pandemic has once again highlighted the ubiquity and persistence of health inequities along with our inability to respond to them in a timely and effective manner. There is an opportunity to address the limitations of our current approaches through new models of informatics-enabled research and clinical practice that shift the norm from small- to large-scale patient engagement. We propose augmenting our approach to address health inequities through informatics-enabled citizen science, challenging the types of questions being asked, prioritized, and acted upon. We envision this democratization of informatics that builds upon the inclusive tradition of community-based participatory research (CBPR) as a logical and transformative step toward improving individual, community, and population health in a way that deeply reflects the needs of historically marginalized populations.

There is a growing trend of applying machine learning methods to medical datasets in order to predict patients’ future status. Although some of these methods achieve high performance, challenges still exist in comparing and evaluating different models through their interpretable information. Such analytics can help clinicians improve evidence-based medical decision making. In this work, we develop a visual analytics system that compares multiple models’ prediction criteria and evaluates their consistency. With our system, users can generate knowledge on different models’ inner criteria and how confidently we can rely on each model’s prediction for a certain patient. Through a case study of a publicly available clinical dataset, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our visual analytics system to assist clinicians and researchers in comparing and quantitatively evaluating different machine learning methods.

OBJECTIVE: Little evidence exists about effective and scalable methods for meaningful stakeholder engagement in research. We explored patient/caregiver experiences with a high-tech online engagement approach for patient-centered research prioritization, compared their experiences with those of professional stakeholders, and identified factors associated with favorable participant experiences. METHODS: We conducted 8 online modified-Delphi (OMD) panels. Panelists participated in 2 rating rounds with a statistical feedback/online discussion round in between. Panels focused on weight management/obesity, heart failure, and Kawasaki disease. We recruited a convenience sample of adults with any of the 3 conditions (or parents/guardians of Kawasaki disease patients), clinicians, and researchers. Measures included self-reported willingness to use OMD again, the panelists' study participation and online discussion experiences, the system's perceived ease of use, and active engagement metrics. RESULTS: Out of 349 panelists, 292 (84%) completed the study. Of those, 46% were patients, 36% were clinicians, and 19% were researchers. In multivariate models, patients were not significantly more actively engaged (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94-3.05) but had more favorable study participation (β = 0.49; P ≤ .05) and online discussion (β = 0.18; P ≤ .05) experiences and were more willing to use OMD again (β = 0.36; P ≤ .05), compared to professional stakeholders. Positive perceptions of the OMD system's ease of use (β = 0.16; P ≤ .05) and favorable study participation (β = 0.26; P ≤ .05) and online discussion (β = 0.57; P ≤ .05) experiences were also associated with increased willingness to use OMD in the future. Active engagement was not associated with online experience indices or willingness to use OMD again. CONCLUSION: Online approaches to engaging large numbers of stakeholders are a promising and efficient adjunct to in-person meetings.

UNLABELLED: New models of healthcare delivery such as accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes seek to improve quality, access, and cost. They rely on a robust, secure technology infrastructure provided by health information exchanges (HIEs) and distributed research networks and the willingness of patients to share their data. There are few large, in-depth studies of US consumers' views on privacy, security, and consent in electronic data sharing for healthcare and research together. OBJECTIVE: This paper addresses this gap, reporting on a survey which asks about California consumers' views of data sharing for healthcare and research together. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey conducted was a representative, random-digit dial telephone survey of 800 Californians, performed in Spanish and English. RESULTS: There is a great deal of concern that HIEs will worsen privacy (40.3%) and security (42.5%). Consumers are in favor of electronic data sharing but elements of transparency are important: individual control, who has access, and the purpose for use of data. Respondents were more likely to agree to share deidentified information for research than to share identified information for healthcare (76.2% vs 57.3%, p < .001). DISCUSSION: While consumers show willingness to share health information electronically, they value individual control and privacy. Responsiveness to these needs, rather than mere reliance on Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), may improve support of data networks. CONCLUSION: Responsiveness to the public's concerns regarding their health information is a pre-requisite for patient-centeredness. This is one of the first in-depth studies of attitudes about electronic data sharing that compares attitudes of the same individual towards healthcare and research.

BACKGROUND: Centralized and federated models for sharing data in research networks currently exist. To build multivariate data analysis for centralized networks, transfer of patient-level data to a central computation resource is necessary. The authors implemented distributed multivariate models for federated networks in which patient-level data is kept at each site and data exchange policies are managed in a study-centric manner. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to implement infrastructure that supports the functionality of some existing research networks (e.g., cohort discovery, workflow management, and estimation of multivariate analytic models on centralized data) while adding additional important new features, such as algorithms for distributed iterative multivariate models, a graphical interface for multivariate model specification, synchronous and asynchronous response to network queries, investigator-initiated studies, and study-based control of staff, protocols, and data sharing policies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the requirements gathered from statisticians, administrators, and investigators from multiple institutions, the authors developed infrastructure and tools to support multisite comparative effectiveness studies using web services for multivariate statistical estimation in the SCANNER federated network. RESULTS: The authors implemented massively parallel (map-reduce) computation methods and a new policy management system to enable each study initiated by network participants to define the ways in which data may be processed, managed, queried, and shared. The authors illustrated the use of these systems among institutions with highly different policies and operating under different state laws. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Federated research networks need not limit distributed query functionality to count queries, cohort discovery, or independently estimated analytic models. Multivariate analyses can be efficiently and securely conducted without patient-level data transport, allowing institutions with strict local data storage requirements to participate in sophisticated analyses based on federated research networks.

There is currently limited information on best practices for the development of governance requirements for distributed research networks (DRNs), an emerging model that promotes clinical data reuse and improves timeliness of comparative effectiveness research. Much of the existing information is based on a single type of stakeholder such as researchers or administrators. This paper reports on a triangulated approach to developing DRN data governance requirements based on a combination of policy analysis with experts, interviews with institutional leaders, and patient focus groups. This approach is illustrated with an example from the Scalable National Network for Effectiveness Research, which resulted in 91 requirements. These requirements were analyzed against the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protected versus non-protected health information. The requirements addressed all FIPPs, showing how a DRN's technical infrastructure is able to fulfill HIPAA regulations, protect privacy, and provide a trustworthy platform for research.

This article describes the patient-centered Scalable National Network for Effectiveness Research (pSCANNER), which is part of the recently formed PCORnet, a national network composed of learning healthcare systems and patient-powered research networks funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). It is designed to be a stakeholder-governed federated network that uses a distributed architecture to integrate data from three existing networks covering over 21 million patients in all 50 states: (1) VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI), with data from Veteran Health Administration's 151 inpatient and 909 ambulatory care and community-based outpatient clinics; (2) the University of California Research exchange (UC-ReX) network, with data from UC Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego; and (3) SCANNER, a consortium of UCSD, Tennessee VA, and three federally qualified health systems in the Los Angeles area supplemented with claims and health information exchange data, led by the University of Southern California. Initial use cases will focus on three conditions: (1) congestive heart failure; (2) Kawasaki disease; (3) obesity. Stakeholders, such as patients, clinicians, and health service researchers, will be engaged to prioritize research questions to be answered through the network. We will use a privacy-preserving distributed computation model with synchronous and asynchronous modes. The distributed system will be based on a common data model that allows the construction and evaluation of distributed multivariate models for a variety of statistical analyses.