It's not about the capture, it's about what we can learn": a qualitative study of experts' opinions and experiences regarding the use of wearable sensors to measure gait and physical activity.
Accelerometry
Acceptability
Qualitative
Remote monitoring
Wearable devices
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 05 2021
11 05 2021
Historique:
received:
25
11
2020
accepted:
28
04
2021
entrez:
12
5
2021
pubmed:
13
5
2021
medline:
20
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of wearable sensor technology to collect patient health data, such as gait and physical activity, offers the potential to transform healthcare research. To maximise the use of wearable devices in practice, it is important that they are usable by, and offer value to, all stakeholders. Although previous research has explored participants' opinions of devices, to date, limited studies have explored the experiences and opinions of the researchers who use and implement them. Researchers offer a unique insight into wearable devices as they may have access to multiple devices and cohorts, and thus gain a thorough understanding as to how and where this area needs to progress. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the experiences and opinions of researchers from academic, industry and clinical contexts, in the use of wearable devices to measure gait and physical activity. Twenty professionals with experience using wearable devices in research were recruited from academic, industry and clinical backgrounds. Independent, semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcribed texts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Five themes were identified: (1) The positives and negatives of using wearable devices in research, (2) The routine implementation of wearable devices into research and clinical practice, (3) The importance of compromise in protocols, (4) Securing good quality data, and (5) A paradigm shift. Researchers overwhelmingly supported the use of wearable sensor technology due to the insights that they may provide. Though barriers remain, researchers were pragmatic towards these, believing that there is a paradigm shift happening in this area of research that ultimately requires mistakes and significant volumes of further research to allow it to progress. Multiple barriers to the use of wearable devices in research and clinical practice remain, including data management and clear clinical utility. However, researchers strongly believe that the potential benefit of these devices to support and create new clinical insights for patient care, is greater than any current barrier. Multi-disciplinary research integrating the expertise of both academia, industry and clinicians is a fundamental necessity to further develop wearable devices and protocols that match the varied needs of all stakeholders.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The use of wearable sensor technology to collect patient health data, such as gait and physical activity, offers the potential to transform healthcare research. To maximise the use of wearable devices in practice, it is important that they are usable by, and offer value to, all stakeholders. Although previous research has explored participants' opinions of devices, to date, limited studies have explored the experiences and opinions of the researchers who use and implement them. Researchers offer a unique insight into wearable devices as they may have access to multiple devices and cohorts, and thus gain a thorough understanding as to how and where this area needs to progress. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the experiences and opinions of researchers from academic, industry and clinical contexts, in the use of wearable devices to measure gait and physical activity.
METHODS
Twenty professionals with experience using wearable devices in research were recruited from academic, industry and clinical backgrounds. Independent, semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcribed texts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Five themes were identified: (1) The positives and negatives of using wearable devices in research, (2) The routine implementation of wearable devices into research and clinical practice, (3) The importance of compromise in protocols, (4) Securing good quality data, and (5) A paradigm shift. Researchers overwhelmingly supported the use of wearable sensor technology due to the insights that they may provide. Though barriers remain, researchers were pragmatic towards these, believing that there is a paradigm shift happening in this area of research that ultimately requires mistakes and significant volumes of further research to allow it to progress.
CONCLUSIONS
Multiple barriers to the use of wearable devices in research and clinical practice remain, including data management and clear clinical utility. However, researchers strongly believe that the potential benefit of these devices to support and create new clinical insights for patient care, is greater than any current barrier. Multi-disciplinary research integrating the expertise of both academia, industry and clinicians is a fundamental necessity to further develop wearable devices and protocols that match the varied needs of all stakeholders.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33975600
doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00874-8
pii: 10.1186/s12984-021-00874-8
pmc: PMC8111746
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
78Références
J Med Syst. 2017 Jul;41(7):115
pubmed: 28631139
Epilepsy Behav. 2018 Aug;85:141-149
pubmed: 29940377
Value Health. 2018 Jun;21(6):631-639
pubmed: 29909867
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Apr 20;8(4):e15704
pubmed: 32310149
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Feb;81(2):196-8
pubmed: 26542184
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Nov 08;6(11):e11066
pubmed: 30409767
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2018 May;30(3):276-281
pubmed: 29369089
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Jul;104(1):42-52
pubmed: 29205294
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jan 27;4(1):e7
pubmed: 26818775
J Appl Gerontol. 2017 Feb;36(2):127-155
pubmed: 26753803
J Med Syst. 2019 Jun 15;43(8):233
pubmed: 31203472
Appl Ergon. 2018 Jul;70:77-87
pubmed: 29866329
J Biomed Inform. 2019 May;93:103153
pubmed: 30910623
J Clin Neurosci. 2014 Jul;21(7):1089-93
pubmed: 24534628
J Public Health Dent. 2011 Winter;71(s1):S52-S63
pubmed: 21499543
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 25;6(1):e009544
pubmed: 26810998