Table 4 Codebook of variables used to characterize PM-like efforts
From: Qualifying and quantifying the precision medicine rhetoric
Theme | Category | Qualifying words or phrases (when applicable) |
|---|---|---|
Longitudinal | Yes | “longitudinal,” “cohort” |
No | ||
Data type | Biospecimen | “blood,” “saliva,” “urine,” “genome,” “genetic screening,” “biomarkers,” “laboratory results” |
Electronic Health Record (EHR) | “electronic health record,” “electronic medical record,” “patient registry,” “clinical outcomes,” “e-health,” mention of recruitment through hospital | |
Personal Provided Information (PPI) | Mention of questionnaire or survey about environmental, behavioral, and/or lifestyle factors | |
Sensor | “wearable/smart technology/mobile sensor,” “(daily) monitoring,” “physiological data” | |
Funding | Government | mention of government body or subsidiary e.g. “national institute,” “ministry,” “parliament,” “council,” and “public research university” |
Industry | ||
Nonprofit | ||
Donations | ||
Study Aim | Database | mention of building a platform or baseline, combining genomic and [phenotypic data] or [medical information], “data storage,” “biobank,” “registry,” “repository” |
Clinical Trial | mention of clinical application or intervention, “demonstration projects” | |
Review | consolidated funding entities, meta-analyses of existing databases, mention of a consortium or center that forms partnerships and supports various projects in applied and basic research, policy-making, and data analytics i.e. programs that “review” and support progress in an overarching way | |
Patients/Participants considered partners | Yes | “need you,” “get involved,” “patient-centered,” call-to-action language in enrollment, return of results |
No |