{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02553940995156319, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0030823425803610744, 'mean_word_length': 5.510028653295129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Food Practice into Clinical Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND
 Food practice plays an important role in health. Food practice data collected in daily living settings can inform clinical decisions. However, integrating such data into clinical decision-making is burdensome for both clinicians and patients, resulting in poor adherence and limited utilization. Automation offers benefits in this regard, minimizing this burden resulting in a better fit with a patient's daily living routines, and creating opportunities for better integration into clinical workflow. Although the literature on patient-generated health data (PGHD) can serve as a starting point for the automation of food practice data, more diverse characteristics of food practice data provide additional challenges.


OBJECTIVES
 We describe a series of steps for integrating food practices into clinical decision-making. These steps include the following: (1) sensing food practice; (2) capturing food practice data; (3) representing food practice; (4) reflecting the information to the patient; (5) incorporating data into the EHR; (6) presenting contextualized food practice information to clinicians; and (7) integrating food practice into clinical decision-making.


METHODS
 We elaborate on automation opportunities and challenges in each step, providing a summary visualization of the flow of food practice-related data from daily living settings to clinical settings.


RESULTS
 We propose four implications of automating food practice hereinafter. First, there are multiple ways of automating workflow related to food practice. Second, steps may occur in daily living and others in clinical settings. Food practice data and the necessary contextual information should be integrated into clinical decision-making to enable action. Third, as accuracy becomes important for food practice data, macrolevel data may have advantages over microlevel data in some situations. Fourth, relevant systems should be designed to eliminate disparities in leveraging food practice data.


CONCLUSION
 Our work confirms previously developed recommendations in the context of PGHD work and provides additional specificity on how these recommendations apply to food practice.