Abstract
The internet of things has ushered in a world of possibilities in chronic disease management. Connected to the health information network, a health device can monitor and provide intervention recommendations to patients in real time. However, this new health information system may face the risk of patients not following the system’s recommendations depending on their perception of the system. In this paper, we consider patients’ trust in the system a key factor driving their adherence to the system’s recommendation and develop an analytical model to design the optimal alerting strategy in the context of asthma management. Our method acknowledges that patient’s trust may change over time based on their experience of using the system, which may influence their future adherence behavior. We derive a set of structural properties of our solution and demonstrate that our approach can significantly improve patients’ quality of life compared to the current practice of asthma management. Furthermore, we investigate various real-world scenarios, such as the case that patients may have different level of tolerance for receiving alerts. Based on our findings, valuable insights can be shared with patients, healthcare practitioners, and companies in the technology-enabled healthcare business sector.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agarwal R, Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly 24(4):665–694
Agarwal R, Venkatesh V (2002) Assessing a firm’s web presence: a heuristic evaluation procedure for the measurement of usability. Inform Syst Res 13(2):168–186
Ahsen ME, Ayvaci MUS, Raghunathan S (2019) When algorithmic predictions use human-generated data: A bias-aware classification algorithm for breast cancer diagnosis. Inform Syst Res 30(1):97–116
American Lung Association (2014) Asthma treatment plan—adult form. http://www.pacnj.org/pdfs/atpfillableadult.pdf. Accessed 8 Mar 2019
Asthma Society of Canada (2018) Asthma action plan—English. https://asthma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/AAP-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2019
Astrom K (1965) Optimal control of markov processes with incomplete state information. J Math Anal Appl 10(1):174–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247x(65)90154-x
Ayer T, Alagoz O, Stout NK (2012) OR forum—a POMDP approach to personalize mammography screening decisions. Oper Res 60(5):1019–1034
Ayer T, Alagoz O, Stout NK, Burnside ES (2016) Heterogeneity in women’s adherence and its role in optimal breast cancer screening policies. Manage Sci 62(5):1339–1362
Bardhan I, Oh Jh, Zheng Z, Kirksey K (2015) Predictive analytics for readmission of patients with congestive heart failure. Inform Syst Res 26(1):19–39
Bateman ED, Boushey HA, Bousquet J, Busse WW, Clark TJ, Pauwels RA, Pedersen SE (2004) Can guideline-defined asthma control be achieved? the gaining optimal asthma control study. Am J Res Crit Care Med 170(8):836–844
Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D (2011) The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health affairs 30(3):464–471
Carpenter CJ (2010) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health belief model variables in predicting behavior. Health Commun 25(8):661–669
Cortez A, Hsii P, Mitchell E, Riehl V, Smith P (2018) Conceptualizing a data infrastructure for the capture, use, and sharing of patient-generated health data in care delivery and research through 2024 (white paper)
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 319–340
Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35(8):982–1003
Ferguson T, Birnbaum Z, Lukacs E (2014) Mathematical statistics: a decision theoretic approach. Academic Press, Probability and mathematical statistics
Fichman R, Kohli R, Krishnan R, Kane G (2011) The role of information systems in healthcare: current research and future trends, lead article by the senior editors in. Inform Syst Res
French MT, Mauskopf JA (1992) A quality-of-life method for estimating the value of avoided morbidity. Am J Public Health 82(11):1553–1555
Gadkari AS, McHorney CA (2012) Unintentional non-adherence to chronic prescription medications: how unintentional is it really? BMC Health Serv Res 12(1):98
Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003) Trust and tam in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly 27(1):51–90
Haughey J, Taylor K, Dohrmann M, Snyder G (2018) Medtech and the internet of medical things: how connected medical devices are transforming health care
Hoff KA, Bashir M (2015) Trust in automation. Human Fact 57(3):407–434
Huckvale K, Morrison C, Ouyang J, Ghaghda A, Car J (2015) The evolution of mobile apps for asthma: an updated systematic assessment of content and tools. BMC Med 13(1):58
Kahn BE, Luce MF (2003) Understanding high-stakes consumer decisions: mammography adherence following false-alarm test results. Market Sci 22(3):393–410
Karlin S (1968) Total positivity. Stanford University Press
Karlin S, Rinott Y (1980) Classes of orderings of measures and related correlation inequalities—I. Multivariate totally positive distributions. J Multiv Anal 10(4):467–498
Kim MS, Henderson KA, Van Sickle D (2016) Using connected devices to monitor inhaler use in the real world. Resp Drug Deliv 2016:37–44
Kolodner RM, Cohn SP, Friedman CP (2008) Health information technology: strategic initiatives, real progress: there is nothing “magical” about the strategic thinking behind health it adoption in the united states. Health Aff 27(Suppl1):w391–w395
Lee YY, Lin JL (2009) The effects of trust in physician on self-efficacy, adherence and diabetes outcomes. Social Sci Med 68(6):1060–1068
Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Fact 46(1):50–80
Leroy G, Chen H, Rindflesch TC (2014) Smart and connected health [guest editors’ introduction]. IEEE Intell Syst 29(3):2–5
Lin YK, Chen H, Brown RA, Li SH, Yang HJ (2017) Healthcare predictive analytics for risk profiling in chronic care: a bayesian multitask learning approach. MIS Quarterly 41(2):473–495
Lovejoy WS (1987) Some monotonicity results for partially observed markov decision processes. Oper Res 35(5):736–743
Madhavan P, Phillips RR (2010) Effects of computer self-efficacy and system reliability on user interaction with decision support systems. Comput Human Behav 26(2):199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.005
Madhavan P, Wiegmann DA (2005) Cognitive anchoring on self-generated decisions reduces operator reliance on automated diagnostic aids. Human Fact 47(2):332–341. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720054679489
McKnight DH, Cummings LL, Chervany NL (1998) Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad Manage Rev 23(3):473–490
McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model. J Strat Inform Syst 11(3–4):297–323
Merchant RK, Inamdar R, Quade RC (2016) Effectiveness of population health management using the propeller health asthma platform: a randomized clinical trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 4(3):455–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2015.11.022
Meyer G, Adomavicius G, Johnson PE, Elidrisi M, Rush WA, Sperl-Hillen JM, O’Connor PJ (2014) A machine learning approach to improving dynamic decision making. Inform Syst Res 25(2):239–263
Milgrom H, Bender B, Ackerson L, Bowrya P, Smith B, Rand C (1996) Noncompliance and treatment failure in children with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 98(6):1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0091-6749(96)80190-4
Mojtabai R, Olfson M (2003) Medication costs, adherence, and health outcomes among medicare beneficiaries. Health Aff 22(4):220–229
Montague EN, Winchester WW III, Kleiner BM (2010) Trust in medical technology by patients and healthcare providers in obstetric work systems. Behav Inform Technol 29(5):541–554
Ohnishi M, Kawai H, Mine H (1986) An optimal inspection and replacement policy under incomplete state information. Eur J Oper Res 27(1):117–128
Patel M, Pilcher J, Reddel HK, Qi V, Mackey B, Tranquilino T, Shaw D, Black P, Weatherall M, Beasley R (2014) Predictors of severe exacerbations, poor asthma control, and beta-agonist overuse for patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2(6):751-758.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2014.06.001
Plottel CS (2010) 100 questions & answers about asthma. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Sudbury, MD
Postma DS (2007) Gender differences in asthma development and progression. Gender Med 4:S133–S146
Rosenfield D (1976) Markovian deterioration with uncertain information. Oper Res 24(1):141–155
Smallwood RD, Sondik EJ (1973) The optimal control of partially observable markov processes over a finite horizon. Oper Res 21(5):1071–1088. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.21.5.1071
Son J, Brennan PF, Zhou S (2016) Rescue inhaler usage prediction in smart asthma management systems using joint mixed effects logistic regression model. IIE Trans 48(4):333–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.2015.1078014
Son J, Brennan PF, Zhou S (2017) Correlated gamma-based hidden markov model for the smart asthma management based on rescue inhaler usage. Stat Med 36(10):1619–1637
Son J, Brennan PF, Zhou S (2020) Data analytics framework for smart asthma management based on remote health information systems with bluetooth-enabled personal inhalers. MIS Quarterly 44(1):285–303
van Sickle D, Maenner M, Barrett M, Marcus J (2013) Monitoring and improving compliance and asthma control: mapping inhaler use for feedback to patients, physicians and payers. Respir Drug Deliv Eur 1–12
Vance A, Elie-Dit-Cosaque C, Straub DW (2008) Examining trust in information technology artifacts: the effects of system quality and culture. J Manage Inform Syst 24(4):73–100. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222240403
Venkatesh V, Goyal S (2010) Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Quarterly 281–303
White CC (1979) Optimal control-limit strategies for a partially observed replacement problem. Int J Syst Sci 10(3):321–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207727908941584
World Health Organization (2003) Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. The industry collaborator provided helpful feedback and data without any financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Also, the authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A: Proofs of analytical results
The following results are used throughout Appendix.
Lemma A.1
[25] For two probability mass functions \({\varvec{x}}\) and \({\varvec{x}}'\) with the same dimension \(\left| X\right|\), \({\varvec{x}}\le _s{\varvec{x}}'\) iff \(\sum _{i\in X}{{\varvec{x}}\left( i\right) f\left( i\right) }\ge \sum _{i\in X}{{\varvec{x}}'\left( i\right) f\left( i\right) }\) for every non-increasing f in \(i\in X\).
Lemma A.2
[47] For two probability mass functions \({\varvec{x}}\) and \({\varvec{x}}'\) with the same dimension \(\left| X\right|\), if \({\varvec{x}}\le _r{\varvec{x}}'\) then \({\varvec{x}}\le _s{\varvec{x}}'\).
Lemma A.3
[26] If \({\varvec{P}}\in {TP}_2\) and \({\varvec{x}}\le _r{\varvec{x}}'\) are two probability mass functions with the same dimension \(\left| X\right|\), then \({\varvec{x}}{\varvec{P}}\le _r{\varvec{x}}'{\varvec{P}}\) provided that \({\varvec{P}}\) have appropriate dimension.
Lemma A.4
[43] For \({\varvec{x}}\le _r{\varvec{x}}'\) in Definition 2, \({\varvec{x}}\le _r\left( 1-\lambda \right) {\varvec{x}}+\lambda {\varvec{x}}'\le _r{\varvec{x}}'\) for any arbitrary \(\lambda \in \left[ 0, 1\right]\).
Lemma A.5
[48] The optimality equation \(V^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi } \right)\) is piecewise linear convex hence can be written in terms of the maximum of a finite number of linear functions as:
for all \(t\le t_E\) where the \(\left| S\right|\)-dimensional vector \(\alpha ^i_t=\left[ {\alpha }^i_t\left( s\right) \right]\) for \(s\in S\) called the \(\alpha\)-vectors.
Proof of analytical results 1 and 2
Analytical Results 1 and 2 are crucial because, based on them, we can claim a monotone optimal value function nonincreasing in \(\varvec{\pi }\in {{\varvec{\Pi }}}\). We first show Lemma 1 as follows:
Lemma 1
Suppose (C1)–(C3) hold, then the state transition probability matrix \({{\varvec{\Gamma }}}_t^{a,o}\) has \({TP}_2\) property for all \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\) and \(o\in {\mathbf {O}}\) where (C1)–(C3) are
Proof of Lemma 1
First, we consider \(o=y\in \varvec{Y}\) for \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\). In this case, the transition probability matrices are
where \({{\Gamma }}^{W,y}_{0j}\), \({{\Gamma }}^{W,y}_{1j}\), and \({{\Gamma }}^{W,y}_{2j}\) can be replaced with \({{\Gamma }}^{A,y}_{0j}\), \({{\Gamma }}^{A,y}_{1j}\), and \({{\Gamma }}^{A,y}_{2j}\).
Let us ignore the denominator and focus on the numerator for each entry in \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,y}_t\). Note that \([p_{ij}^{x,z}]=c_{kl}^x\times v_{qu}^z\) denotes a matrix of transition probabilities from state i to state j for \(i,j\in \{0,1,2\}\), where \(x\in \{1,0\}\), \(z\in \{gain,loss,none\}\), \(k=G\) if \(i\in \{0,1\}\), \(k=B\) if \(i=2\), \(l=G\) if \(j\in \{0,1\}\), \(l=B\) if \(j=2\), \(q=H\) if \(i=0\), \(q=L\) if \(i\in \{1,2\}\), \(u=H\) if \(j=0\), and \(u=L\) if \(j\in \{1,2\}\). Then, we have
The first, second, and third rows have the following relationship:
where the first inequality holds because of (C2) and the second inequality holds due to (C3). It can be shown that \(c^0_{GB}v^{none}_{HH}=1-\sum ^2_{j=0}{{{\Gamma }}^{W,y}_{0j}}\), \(c^0_{GB}v^{none}_{LH}=1-\sum ^2_{j=0}{{{\Gamma }}^{W,y}_{1j}}\), and \(c^0_{BB}v^{none}_{LH}=1-\sum ^2_{j=0}{{{\Gamma }}^{W,y}_{2j}}\). Because both \(\left( 1-c^0_{GB}v^{none}_{LH}\right) /\left( 1-c^0_{GB}v^{none}_{HH}\right)\) and \(\left( 1-c^0_{BB}v^{none}_{LH}\right) /\left( 1-c^0_{GB}v^{none}_{LH}\right)\) are non-negative, we obtain
which directly implies \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,y}_t\left( \cdot |0\right) {\le }_r{\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,y}_t\left( \cdot |1\right)\) and \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,y}_t\left( \cdot |1\right) {\le }_r{\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,y}_t\left( \cdot |2\right)\) from Definition 2. Thus, from Definition 3, \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,y}_t\in {TP}_2\) for \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\) and \(t\le t_E\).
Now, for \(o\mathrm {=}{\mathrm {s}}^H_t\) and \(a\mathrm {=}W\), the transition matrix without the normalizing denominators is
and we can derive following relationships
where the first inequality holds because of (C1) and (C2), the second inequality holds due to (C3), and the second equality is based on (C1). Therefore, \({\widetilde{\varvec{{\Gamma }}}}^{W,s^C_t}_t\left( \cdot |0\right) {\le }_r{\widetilde{\varvec{{\Gamma }}}}^{W,s^C_t}_t\left( \cdot |1\right) {\le }_r{\widetilde{\varvec{{\Gamma }}}}^{W,s^C_t}_t\left( \cdot |2\right)\) which implies that \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{W,s^C_t}_t\in {TP}_2\) from Definition 3. Similarly, for \(o\mathrm {=}{\mathrm {s}}^H_t\) and \(a\mathrm {=}A\), we have
and we derive following relationships
where the first inequality holds because (C2) and the second inequality holds due to (C3). The second equality is based on (C1). Therefore, \({\widetilde{\varvec{{\Gamma }}}}^{A,s^C_t}_t\left( \cdot |0\right) {\le }_r{\widetilde{\varvec{{\Gamma }}}}^{A,s^C_t}_t\left( \cdot |1\right) {\le }_r{\widetilde{\varvec{{\Gamma }}}}^{A,s^C_t}_t\left( \cdot |2\right)\) which implies that \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{A,s^C_t}_t\in {TP}_2\) from Definition 3. Based on all results above, we see that \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,o}_t\in {TP}_2\) for \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\), \(o\in \varvec{O}\), and \(t\le t_E\). \(\square\)
Lemma 1 shows that the state transition probability matrix \({{\varvec{\Gamma }}}_t^{a,o}\) has the \(TP_2\) property. We can also show that the \(TP_2\) property can be retained after simplifying the state transition probability matrix to \({{\varvec{\Gamma }}}_t^{a}\) as follows:
Proposition 1
Suppose (C1)–(C3) hold, then the \({{\varvec{\Gamma }}}_t^{a,o}\in {TP}_2\) for all \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\) and \(t\le t_E\).
Proof of Proposition 1
To recall, the overall transition probability for \(a_t=W\) is expressed as
Now, let \(\varvec{p}^{x,z}_{i\cdot }\) denote the a vector of transition probabilities from state i to \(j\in \left\{ 0,1,2\right\}\) for any given \(x\in \left\{ 1,0\right\}\) and \(z\in \left\{ none,gain,loss\right\}\). Then, from Definition 2, we obtain
where the inequality holds because of condition (C1) and the equality holds due to condition (C3). Similarly, we show
where the equality and inequality hold due to conditions (C1) and (C3), respectively. Furthermore, from the same conditions (C1) and (C3), it is easy to show that \(\varvec{p}^{1,gain}_{1\cdot }\varvec{=}\varvec{p}^{0,none}_{1\cdot }\) because \(c^0_{GG}=c^1_{GG}\), \(c^0_{GB}=c^1_{GG}\), and \(v^{none}_{LL}=v^{gain}_{LH}\).
Let \({\varvec{{\varGamma }}}^W_t\left( \cdot |i\right)\) denote a \(\left| S\right|\)-dimensional vector of state transition probabilities from state i to \(j\in \left\{ 0,1,2\right\}\). Then, from Lemma A.4, we get
Now we show
where the inequality in the first expression holds because of condition (C2) and the rest is due to condition (C3). Based on this result, we obtain following relationship:
Therefore, based on Definition 3, \({\varvec{{\varGamma }}}^W_t\in {TP}_2\).
For \(a_t=A\), we follow the identical procedures and get following relationships:
where (C1) and (C3) were used and, using (C2) and (C3), we further obtain
Now, from Lemma A.4, we show
Therefore, based on Definition 3, \({\varvec{{\varGamma }}}^A_t\in {TP}_2\) hence \({\varvec{{\varGamma }}}^a_t\in {TP}_2\) for all \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\) and \(t\le t_E\). \(\square\)
Furthermore, from Lemma 1, we get
Proposition 2
For any two beliefs \(\varvec{\pi }\),\(\varvec{\pi }^{'}\in {{\varvec{\Pi }}}\) such that \(\varvec{\pi }\le _r\varvec{\pi }^{'}\), suppose (C1)–(C3) hold, then \(\varvec{\tau }_{\varvec{\pi }}^{a,o} \le _r {\varvec{\tau }^{a,o}_{\varvec{\pi }^{'}}}\) for any \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\) and \(o\in {\mathbf {O}}\).
Proof of Proposition 2
Let \({\varvec{{\Psi }}}_t\left( o\right)\) denote a 3-by-3 matrix defined as
which has three identical columns for \(o\in \varvec{O}\) and \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\). Now, based on Definition 3, it is easy to show that the following matrix has \({TP}_2\) property
where the operator \(\circ\) indicates element-wise multiplication (Hadamard product). For each belief, we get
and
From Lemma A.3, \(\varvec{\pi }\left( {\varvec{{\Psi }}}_t\left( o\right) \circ {\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,o}_t\right) {\varvec{\le }}_r\varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\left( {\varvec{{\Psi }}}_t\left( o\right) \circ {\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,o}_t\right)\) holds because \({\varvec{{\Psi }}}_t\left( o\right) \circ {\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^{a,o}_t\in {TP}_2\). Based on Definition 3, we rewrite the expression as
From the definition of our belief updating function, we get
Multiplying a non-negative quantity \(\sum _{s\in S}{\pi '\left( s\right) {{\Lambda }}^{s,a}_t\left( o\right) }/\sum _{s\in S}{\pi \left( s\right) {{\Lambda }}^{s,a}_t\left( o\right) }\) yields
which implies \({\varvec{\tau }}^{a,o}_{\pi }{\le }_r{\varvec{\tau }}^{a,o}_{\pi '}\) for any \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\) and \(o\in \varvec{O}\) based on Definition 3. \(\square\)
The Analytical Result 1 is based on Lemma 1 and Proposition 1, and the Analytical Result 2 is equivalent to Proposition 2.
Proof of analytical result 3
The Analytical Result 3 shows that our optimal value function is nonincreasing in \(\varvec{\pi }\in {{\varvec{\Pi }}}\) without assuming an unrealistic \(TP_2\) assumption on the observation probability matrix. First, we give Lemma 2 as follows:
Lemma 2
For \(y_t\in \varvec{Y}\) and \(s^C_t\in \{G,B\}\), let \(\varvec{\xi }_{s^C_t}=\left[ \xi _{s^C_t}(y_t)\right]\) be a |Y|-dimensional probability vector where \(\xi _{s^C_t}(y_t)=P(y_t|s^C_t)\) and define \(\gamma =\xi _G(y^M)/\xi _B(y^M)\) where \(0<\gamma \le 1\). Suppose following conditions are satisfied for all \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\), then the observation probability matrix \(\varvec{\varLambda }^a_t={\left[ {{\Lambda }}^{s,a}_t(o)\right] }_{s\in \varvec{S},o\in \varvec{O}}\in {TP}_2\) for all \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\) and \(t\le t_E\).
Proof of Lemma 2
We give proof only for \(a_t=W\) because the proof for \(a_t=A\) is identical. For \(a_t=W\), the observation matrix for \(o_t\in \varvec{O}=\left\{ 0,\ 1,\ 2^+,s^C_t\right\}\) is defined as
because \({{\Lambda }}^{s,a}_t\left( o=s^C_t\right) =q^{s,a}_t\) and \({{\Lambda }}^{s,a}_t\left( o=y_t\right) =\left( 1-q^{s,a}_t\right) \times P\left( y_t|s^C_t\right)\) for \(y_t\in \varvec{Y}\). Each row in \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\), \(\varvec{{\Lambda }}^W_t(\cdot |i)\), denotes an observation probability vector with dimension of \(\left| \varvec{O}\right|\) for state i.
For the first and second rows in \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\), we see
where the last inequality holds because of (C2). Thus, from Definition 2, \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\left( \cdot {\left| \right. }0\right) {\varvec{\le }}_r{\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\left( \cdot {\left| \right. }1\right)\).
Similarly, for the second and third rows in \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\), we get
where the last inequality holds due to (C2).
From (C1), \({\varvec{\xi }}_G{\varvec{\le }}_r{\varvec{\xi }}_B\) which implies \({\xi }_G\left( 0\right) /{\xi }_B\left( 0\right)\) \(\ge\) \({\xi }_G\left( 1\right) /{\xi }_B\left( 1\right)\) \(\ge\) \({\xi }_G\left( 2\right) /{\xi }_B\left( 2\right)\). Because \(\left( 1-q^{1,W}_t\right) /\left( 1-q^{2,W}_t\right)\) is always positive, the inequalities do not change after multiplication. Therefore, the first and second inequalities hold. Now, based on Definition 2, \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\left( \cdot {\left| \right. }1\right) {\varvec{\le }}_r{\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\left( \cdot {\left| \right. }2\right)\). Because \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\left( \cdot {\left| \right. }0\right) {\varvec{\le }}_r{\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\left( \cdot {\left| \right. }1\right)\) and \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\left( \cdot {\left| \right. }1\right) {\varvec{\le }}_r{\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\left( \cdot {\left| \right. }2\right)\), from Definition 3, \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t={\left[ {{\Lambda }}^{s,W}_t\left( o\right) \right] }_{s\in \varvec{S},o\in \varvec{O}}\in {TP}_2\) for \(t\le t_E\). Following the same procedure for \(a=A\), it is easy to show that \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^A_t={\left[ {{\Lambda }}^{s,A}_t\left( o\right) \right] }_{s\in \varvec{S},o\in \varvec{O}}\in {TP}_2\) for \(t\le t_E\). \(\square\)
We stated that (C5) is not a viable assumption in the SAM application. Therefore, we need to find a way to ensure monotonic nonincreasing value function in \(\varvec{\pi }\in {{\varvec{\Pi }}}\) without depending on Lemma 2. To do so, we give Lemma 3 and Proposition 3 as below:
Lemma 3
The value function for \(a\in {\mathcal {A}}\) is \(V^a_t(\varvec{\pi })=\sum _{s\in \varvec{S}}{\pi (s)\left[ r_t(s,a)+\sum _{s'\in S}{\varGamma ^a_t(s'|s){\widetilde{\alpha }}^{\kappa (\varvec{\pi },a)}_{t+1}(s')}\right] }\) where \(\kappa (\varvec{\pi },a)=\mathrm {argmax}_k \left[ \sum _{s\in \varvec{S}}{\pi (s)\sum _{s'\in \varvec{S}}{\varGamma ^a_t(s'|s)\varvec{\alpha }^k_{t+1}(s')}}\right]\) and \(\alpha ^k_{t+1}(s')\) is \(\alpha\)-vector defined by Lemma A.5. Then, based on the revised \(\alpha\)-vector \({\widetilde{\alpha }}_t^\kappa (\varvec{\pi },a)\), the optimizing \(\alpha\)-vector for a given belief \(\varvec{\pi }\in \varvec{\Pi }\) is denoted as \(\alpha ^{k^*(\varvec{\pi })}_t\) where \(k^*(\varvec{\pi })=\mathrm {argmax}_{\left\{ \kappa \left( \varvec{\pi },W\right) ,\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi },A\right) \right\} } \left[ \sum _{s\in \varvec{S}}{\pi \left( s\right) {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi },W\right) }_t\left( s\right) },\sum _{s\in \varvec{S}}{\pi \left( s\right) {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi },A\right) }_t\left( s\right) }\right]\).
Proof of Lemma 3
First, we express the optimal value function for the updated belief \({\varvec{\tau } }^{a,o}_{\pi }\) in terms of \(\alpha\)-vectors introduced in Lemma A.5 as
where \({\alpha }^k_{t+1}\left( s'\right)\) is the \(\alpha\)-vector in Lemma A.5.
Now, the optimal value function for an action a is
Then, the optimal value function for a given action a becomes \(V^a_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) =\sum _{s\in S}{\pi \left( s\right) {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,a\right) }_t\left( s\right) }\), where \(\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,a\right) ={{\mathrm {argmax}}_k \left[ \sum _{s\in S}{\pi \left( s\right) \sum _{s'\in S}{{{\Gamma }}^a_t\left( s'|s\right) {\alpha }^k_{t+1}\left( s'\right) }}\right] \ }\).
Based on this formulation, we can see that the overall optimal value function is expressed as
where \(k^*\left( \varvec{\pi } \right) ={\mathop {\mathrm {argmax}}_{\left\{ \kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,W\right) ,\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,A\right) \right\} } \left[ \sum _{s\in S}{\pi \left( s\right) {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,W\right) }_t\left( s\right) },\sum _{s\in S}{\pi \left( s\right) {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,A\right) }_t\left( s\right) }\right] \ }\). \(\square\)
Proposition 3
Suppose the following conditions on disutility hold in addition to (C1)–(C3), then the optimizing revised \(\alpha\)-vector is non-increasing in \(s\in S\) for an arbitrary belief \(\varvec{\pi }\in \varvec{\Pi }\): that is, for any \(s_1,s_2\in S\) such that \(s_1<s_2\), \({{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{k^*\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) }_t\left( s_1\right) \ge {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{k^*\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) }_t\left( s_2\right)\) for all \(t\le t_E\).
Proof of Proposition 3
From Lemma 3, we know that
First, we can show that \(r_t\left( s,a,o\right)\) is a non-increasing function in \(s\in S\) for any \(a{\in }{\mathcal {A}}\) and \(o\in O\). Based on (C6), we can derive following minimums and maximums.
From (C7)–(C8), it is straightforward to show that \({\mathop {\mathrm {min}}_{a,o} \left[ r_t\left( s=0,a,o\right) \right] \ }\ge {\mathop {\mathrm {max}}_{a,o} \left[ r_t\left( s=1,a,o\right) \right] \ }\) and \({\mathop {\mathrm {min}}_{a,o} \left[ r_t\left( s=1,a,o\right) \right] \ }\ge {\mathop {\mathrm {max}}_{a,o} \left[ r_t\left( s=2,a,o\right) \right] \ }\). Therefore, \(r_t\left( s,a,o\right)\) is non-increasing in \(s\in \varvec{S}\).
At the last time epoch \(t=t_E\), the optimal value function is defined as
which implies that the\(\ \alpha\)-vector can be defined as \({\alpha }_{t_E}\left( s\right) =r_{t_E}\left( s,a\right) =\sum _{o\in O}{{{\Lambda }}^{s,a}_{t_E}\left( o\right) r_{t_E}\left( s,a,o\right) }\). From the result above, \(r_{t_E}\left( s,a,o\right)\) is non-increasing in \(s\in \varvec{S}\) for any \(a{\in }{\mathcal {A}}\) and \(o\in \varvec{O}\) hence the optimizing \(\alpha\)-vector at time \({t_E}\) is non-increasing in \(s\in \varvec{S}\). In other words, the assertion holds when \(t={t_E}\). Now, assume inductively that the assertion holds at \(t+1,\ t+2,\dots ,\ {t_E}\) and assume the optimizing \(\alpha\)-vector \({{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{k^*\left( \varvec{\pi } \right) }_t\) is associated with action \(a^*\). Based on (C1)–(C3) and Proposition 1, \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^a_t\in {TP}_2\) and, from Definition 3 and Lemma A.2, we get
From the above inequalities and Lemma A.1,
where the inequality holds due to the induction assumption and similarly we get
Therefore, \(\sum _{s'}{{{\Gamma }}^{a^*}_t\left( s'|s\right) {\alpha }^k_{t+1}\left( s'\right) }\) is non-increasing in \(s\in S\).
Because both \(r_t\left( s,a^*,o\right)\) and \(\sum _{s'}{{{\Gamma }}^{a^*,o}_t\left( s'|s\right) {\alpha }^k_{t+1}\left( s'\right) }\) are non-increasing in \(s\in S\), we have
where \(\sum _{o\in O}{{{\Lambda }}^{s,a^*}_t\left( o\right) }\mathrm {=1}\) for any given \(s\in S\). Based on the results above, for any \(s_1,s_2\in S\) such that \(s_1<s_2\), \({{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{k^*\left( \varvec{\pi } \right) }_t\left( s_1\right) \ge {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{k^*\left( \varvec{\pi } \right) }_t\left( s_2\right)\) for all \(t\le {t_E}\). \(\square\)
Finally, based on Lemma 3 and Proposition 3, we give Theorem 1.
Theorem 1
Suppose (C1)–(C3) and (C6)–(C8) hold. Then, for any belief vectors \(\varvec{\pi },\varvec{\pi }'\in \varvec{{\varPi }}\) such that \(\varvec{\pi }{\le }_s\varvec{\pi }'\), \(V^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) \ge V^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi }'\right)\) for all \(t\le t_E\).
Proof of Theorem 1
Based on Lemma 3, the optimal value function is
From Lemma A.1 and Proposition 3, we get
where the first inequality holds because of the definition of the optimal value function. \(\square\)
As we see in Theorem 1, we do not need the \({TP}_2\) property on the observation probability matrix. Therefore, it is permissible to violate (C5) in Lemma 2. The Analytical Result 3 is a summary of Theorem 1, Lemma 3, and Proposition 3.
Proof of analytical result 4
The Analytical Result 4 is based on Theorem 2 and Corollary 1.
Theorem 2
Let \(a^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right)\) denote the optimal action at time t for a given belief \(\varvec{\pi }\in \varvec{{\varPi }}\). Suppose (C1)–(C4) and (C6)–(C8) hold. Furthermore, suppose (C5) holds for\(\ a=W\) and \(\sum _s{\left( \pi \left( s\right) -\pi '\left( s\right) \right) \sum _{s'}{\varGamma ^A_t(s'|s){{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi },A\right) }_{t+1}\left( s'\right) }}\ge 0\) holds. Then, if \(a^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right) =W\) then \(a^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) =W\) and if \(a^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) =A\), then \(a^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right) =A\) for any \(\varvec{\pi },\varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\in \varvec{{\varPi }}\) such that \(\varvec{\pi }{\le }_s\varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\).
Proof of Theorem 2
Consider the case of \(a^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right) =W\). Theorem 2 says that \(V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }'\right) \ge V^A_t\left( \varvec{\pi }'\right)\) and \(V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) \ge V^A_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right)\). Now, suppose the converse is true which means \(V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }'\right) \ge V^A_t\left( \varvec{\pi }'\right)\) and \(V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) <V^A_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right)\). In this case, we get
Because (C4) holds and (C5) holds for \(a=W\), based on Lemma 2, \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\in {TP}_2\). Also, because (C1)–(C3) hold, \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^W_t\in {TP}_2\) based on Proposition 1. When both \({\varvec{{\Lambda }}}^W_t\) and \({\varvec{{\Gamma }}}^W_t\) have \({TP}_2\) property, we can show that \(V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right) -V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) \le 0\) because \(V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) \ge V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right)\) for \(\varvec{\pi }{\varvec{\le }}_s\varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\). We omit this proof which depends on (C6)–(C8), Lemma A.1, and Proposition 2.
Now, from (1), we obtain
Because \({{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,A\right) }_t\) is the optimizing \(\alpha\)-vector, we get
which contradicts to the condition \(\sum _s{\left( \pi \left( s\right) -\pi '\left( s\right) \right) {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,A\right) }_t\left( s\right) }\ge 0\).
Now, consider the case of \(a^*_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right) =A\). Theorem 2 shows that \(V^A_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) \ge V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right)\) and \(V^A_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right) \ge V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right)\). Suppose the converse is true which means \(V^A_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) \ge V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right)\) and \(V^A_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right) <V^W_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\varvec{'}\right)\). Then, we obtain
Therefore, \(V^A_t\left( {\varvec{\pi }}'\right) <V^A_t\left( \varvec{\pi }\right)\) and, as shown before, \(\sum _s{\left( \pi \left( s\right) -\pi '\left( s\right) \right) {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,A\right) }_t\left( s\right) }<0\) which contradicts to the condition \(\sum _s{\left( \pi \left( s\right) -\pi '\left( s\right) \right) {{\widetilde{\alpha }}}^{\kappa \left( \varvec{\pi } ,A\right) }_t\left( s\right) }\ge 0\). \(\square\)
From Theorem 2, we get Corollary 1 as follows:
Corollary 1
Define two probabilities as \({\pi }^*_{GH}=\mathrm {max}\left\{ \pi \left( 0\right) :\ \pi \left( 1\right) =0,a^*\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) =A\right\}\) and \({\pi }^*_{GL}=\mathrm {max}\left\{ \pi \left( 1\right) :\ \pi \left( 0\right) =0,a^*\left( \varvec{\pi }\right) =A\right\}\). Suppose the conditions in Theorem 2 hold, then \({\pi }^*_{GH}\le {\pi }^*_{GL}\).
Proof of Corollary 1
Suppose the converse is true, \({\pi }^*_{GH}>{\pi }^*_{GL}\), and specify two beliefs \({\varvec{\pi }}_1\) and \({\varvec{\pi }}_2\) as \({\varvec{\pi }}_1=[ \begin{array}{ccc} {\pi }^*_{GH}&0&1-{\pi }^*_{GH} \end{array} ]\) and \({\varvec{\pi }}_2=[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0&{\pi }^*_{GH}&1-{\pi }^*_{GH} \end{array} ]\). Then, by definition, it is easy to see that \(a^*\left( {\varvec{\pi }}_1\right) =A\) and \({\varvec{\pi }}_1{\le }_s{\varvec{\pi }}_2\). Therefore, based on Theorem 2, \(a^*\left( {\varvec{\pi }}_2\right) =A\). Now, because \(a^*\left( {\varvec{\pi }}_2\right) =A\) and \({\varvec{\pi }}_2\left( 0\right) =0\), by definition, we get \({\pi }^*_{GL}\ge {\pi }^*_{GH}\) which contradicts to \({\pi }^*_{GH}>{\pi }^*_{GL}\). \(\square\)
Appendix B: Sensitivity analysis
To check the robustness of our model and to quantify the impact of potential violation of our assumption on trust transition, we conduct a series of numerical experiments assuming that the patients are enrolled to the SAM program for a year (365 days). In our study, we initially assume that the trust state evolves according to the trust state transition probability matrix (Table 2 in the manuscript). There are two probability matrices: one for the case when the patient visited a clinic and went through a clinical diagnosis and another for the case when there was no diagnosis performed. The matrices are defined based on the assumption that trust mainly depends on the performance of the system (e.g., false alarm and misdetection reduce the trust level whereas correct alert/no-alert should increase the trust level). To forcefully create a hypothetical scenario where trust is affected by other unknown factors, we assume that a random trust state transition occurs with a probability \(\theta\). In other words, instead of following the specific trust state transition function, for \(365\times \theta\) days within a year, the trust level of the patient is determined by flipping a coin (50/50% chance of being in high/low trust state). By increasing \(\theta\), to some extent, we can show how robust (or vulnerable) the method is when our assumption on trust transition was violated. Table 5 summarizes the numerical experiment results. For each simulation run, we assumed 1000 patients are using the SAM system. The end of decision time is 365 (\(t_E\)=365).
As expected, larger \(\theta\) (i.e., trust depends more heavily on other factors than the performance of the system) reduces the performance (mean QALD) of our method. Under the perfect scenario where trust depends solely on the performance of the system, the average QALD per year is about 344 (as reported in Fig. 6 in the manuscript). The average QALD decreases by 6% when 10% of the trust state transition is triggered by other factors unknown to the model.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Son, J., Kim, Y. & Zhou, S. Alerting patients via health information system considering trust-dependent patient adherence. Inf Technol Manag 23, 245–269 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-021-00350-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-021-00350-8