Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study

Abstract

Background This study aimed to explore the acceptability of a wearable device for remotely measuring mobility in the Mobilise-D technical validation study (TVS), and to explore the acceptability of using digital tools to monitor health. Methods Participants ( N = 106) in the TVS wore a waist-worn device (McRoberts Dynaport MM + ) for one week. Following this, acceptability of the device was measured using two questionnaires: The Comfort Rating Scale (CRS) and a previously validated questionnaire. A subset of participants ( n = 36) also completed semi-structured interviews to further determine device acceptability and to explore their opinions of the use of digital tools to monitor their health. Questionnaire results were analysed descriptively and interviews using a content analysis. Results The device was considered both comfortable (median CRS (IQR; min-max) = 0.0 (0.0; 0–20) on a scale from 0–20 where lower scores signify better comfort) and acceptable (5.0 (0.5; 3.0–5.0) on a scale from 1–5 where higher scores signify better acceptability). Interviews showed it was easy to use, did not interfere with daily activities, and was comfortable. The following themes emerged from participants’ as being important to digital technology: altered expectations for themselves, the use of technology, trust, and communication with healthcare professionals. Conclusions Digital tools may bridge existing communication gaps between patients and clinicians and participants are open to this. This work indicates that waist-worn devices are supported, but further work with patient advisors should be undertaken to understand some of the key issues highlighted. This will form part of the ongoing work of the Mobilise-D consortium.

Advances for Dysphagia in the Digital Age: Integrative Imaging and Wearable Technologies

“…Such large datasets combined with advanced machine learning and artificial intelligence analysis methods [84, 85] could provide essential insights into diagnostic or even prognostic patient profiles with far-reaching clinical implications in the future. Considerations that need to be addressed include issues related to remaining technical challenges specific to wearables, such as limited post-processing abilities, storage or battery life; clinical parameters, such as efficacy and clinical translation; as well as cost and patient and clinician acceptability [86]. New developments in on-chip machine learning hardware technology are expected to address many of the current technical challenges [87].…”

Wearable technology use in long-term care facilities for older adults: a scoping review protocol

“…[14][15][16][17] This review will also seek to understand whether aspects related to acceptability of WT by older adults have been considered in LTCF settings. [17][18][19] Sources will be excluded if they do not specifically relate to WT or if it is not possible to distinguish the use of WT from other types of digital health technologies.…”

“…Studies, policies, or opinion papers will be included if they pertain to wearable devices that perform activity or movement tracking, location monitoring, vital signs monitoring, sleep assessment, or other functions specifically used to improve the care provided in LTCF settings 14–17 . This review will also seek to understand whether aspects related to acceptability of WT by older adults have been considered in LTCF settings 17–19 . Sources will be excluded if they do not specifically relate to WT or if it is not possible to distinguish the use of WT from other types of digital health technologies.…”

“…Acceptability can depend on several factors, such as ease of use, perceived usefulness, and comfort. Moreover, users need to understand the benefits of WT, whether it be health tracking or another form of utility 18 . Older adults in LTCFs may have limited experience with technology, cognitive impairment, or physical challenges, such as poor eyesight or difficulty with fine motor skills.…”

“…Moreover, users need to understand the benefits of WT, whether it be health tracking or another form of utility. 18 Older adults in LTCFs may have limited experience with technology, cognitive impairment, or physical challenges, such as poor eyesight or difficulty with fine motor skills. Therefore, WT needs to be extremely user-friendly, with simple interfaces, clear instructions, and easy-to-press buttons.…”