Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Europe PubMed Centra...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
versions View all 7 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Assessing the usability of wearable devices to measure gait and physical activity in chronic conditions: a systematic review

Authors: Keogh, Alison; Argent, Rob; Anderson, Amy; Caulfield, Brian; Johnston, William;

Assessing the usability of wearable devices to measure gait and physical activity in chronic conditions: a systematic review

Abstract

Abstract Background: The World Health Organisation’s global strategy for digital health emphasises the importance of patient involvement. Understanding the usability and acceptability of wearable devices is a core component of this. However, usability assessments to date have focused predominantly on healthy adults. There is a need to understand the patient perspective of wearable devices in participants with chronic health conditions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify any study design that included a usability assessment of wearable devices to measure mobility, through gait and physical activity, within five cohorts with chronic conditions (Parkinson’s disease [PD], multiple sclerosis [MS], congestive heart failure, [CHF], chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder [COPD], and proximal femoral fracture [PFF]). Results: Thirty-seven studies were identified. Substantial heterogeneity in the quality of reporting, the methods used to assess usability, the devices used, and the aims of the studies precluded any meaningful comparisons. Questionnaires were used in the majority of studies (70.3%; n = 26) with a reliance on intervention specific measures (n = 16; 61.5%). For those who used interviews (n = 17; 45.9%), no topic guides were provided, while methods of analysis were not reported in over a third of studies (n = 6; 35.3%). Conclusion: Usability of wearable devices is a poorly measured and reported variable in chronic health conditions. Although the heterogeneity in how these devices are implemented implies acceptance, the patient voice should not be assumed. In the absence of being able to make specific usability conclusions, the results of this review instead recommends that future research needs to: (1) Conduct usability assessments as standard, irrespective of the cohort under investigation or the type of study undertaken. (2) Adhere to basic reporting standards (e.g. COREQ) including the basic details of the study. Full copies of any questionnaires and interview guides should be supplied through supplemental files. (3) Utilise mixed methods research to gather a more comprehensive understanding of usability than either qualitative or quantitative research alone will provide. (4) Use previously validated questionnaires alongside any intervention specific measures. This work was supported by the Mobilise-D project that has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No. 820820. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). Content in this publication reflects the authors’ view and neither IMI nor the European Union, EFPIA, or any Associated Partners are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

Subjects by Vocabulary

Microsoft Academic Graph classification: medicine.medical_specialty Disease User experience design Intervention (counseling) medicine Wearable technology business.industry Multimethodology Usability Digital health Cohort Physical therapy business

Keywords

Adult, Multiple Sclerosis, Usability, Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry, Health Informatics, Review, User-Computer Interface, Wearable Electronic Devices, Humans, Gait, Exercise, User experience, Physical activity, Rehabilitation, Wearable sensors, RC321-571

86 references, page 1 of 9

1. WHO. Draft global strategy on digital health. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2020.

2. Mathews SC, McShea MJ, Hanley CL, Ravitz A, Labrique AB, Cohen AB. Digital health: a path to validation. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:38.

3. ISO. ISO 9241-11:2018(en) Ergonomics of human-system interactionPart 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts: International Organization for Standardization; 2018 https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:13407:ed-1: v1:en

4. Borsci S, Federici S, Malizia A, De Filippis ML. Shaking the usability tree: why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward. Behav Inf Techn. 2018;38(5):519-32.

5. Bryson D. Unwearables. AI Soc. 2007;22:25-35.

6. Dvorak J. Moving wearables into the mainstream: taming the Borg. New York: Springer; 2008.

7. Baig MM, GholamHosseini H, Moqeem AA, Mirza F, Linden M. A systematic review of wearable patient monitoring systems - current challenges and opportunities for clinical adoption. J Med Syst. 2017;41(7):115.

8. Tsertsidis A, Kolkowska E, Hedstrom K. Factors influencing seniors' accept - ance of technology for ageing in place in the post-implementation stage: a literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2019;129:324-33. [OpenAIRE]

9. Ferreira JJ, Fernandes CI, Rammal HG, Veiga PM. Wearable technology and consumer interaction: a systematic review and research agenda. Comput Hum Behav. 2021;118:106710. [OpenAIRE]

10. Wang H, Tao D, Yu N, Qu X. Understanding consumer acceptance of healthcare wearable devices: an integrated model of UTAUT and TTF. Int J Med Inform. 2020;139:104156.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    15
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 96
    download downloads 51
  • citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    15
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    Powered byBIP!BIP!
  • 96
    views
    51
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
15
Top 10%
Average
Top 10%
96
51
Green
gold