How is the usability of commercial activity monitors perceived by older adults and by researchers? A cross-sectional evaluation of community-living individuals

Hofbauer, Lena M; Rodriguez, Francisca S.

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063135

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surveys were the most prevalent method for capturing usability data; 86 sDHTs were evaluated using referenced surveys while 81 were evaluated using surveys developed in-house by study investigators. Data for four sDHTs were captured using the sDHT itself; for example, instances of connectivity loss or data capture drops were recorded as use-errors and/or technical performance/product-errors [43,44].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic scoping review of studies describing human factors, human-centered design, and usability of sensor-based digital health technologies

Tandon,

Cobb,

Centra

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIncreasing adoption of sensor-based digital health technologies (sDHTs) in recent years has cast light on the many challenges in implementing these tools into clinical trials and patient care at scale across diverse patient populations; however, the methodological approaches taken towards sDHT usability evaluation have varied markedly.ObjectiveTo elucidate the current landscape of studies reporting data related to sDHT human factors, human-centered design, and/or usability.MethodsWe conducted a systematic scoping review of studies published between 2013 and 2023 and indexed in PubMed, in which data related to sDHT human factors, human-centered design, and/or usability were reported. Following a systematic screening process, we extracted the study design; participant sample; the sDHT(s) used; the method(s) of data capture; and the type(s) of usability-related data captured.ResultsOur literature search returned 442 papers, of which 85 were found to be eligible and 83 were available for data extraction and not under embargo. In total, 164 sDHTs were evaluated; 141 were wearable tools while the remaining 23 were ambient tools. The majority of studies (n=55; 66%) reported summative evaluations of final-design sDHTs. Almost all studies (n=82; 98%) captured data from targeted end-users, but only 18 (22%) captured data from additional users such as carepartners or clinicians. User satisfaction and ease of use were evaluated for >80% of sDHTs; however, learnability, eficiency, and memorability were reported for only 11 (13%), 4 (5%), and 2 sDHTs (2%), respectively. Fourteen sDHTs (17%) were evaluated according to the extent to which users were able to understand the clinical data or other information presented to them (understandability) and/or the actions or tasks they should complete in response (actionability). Notable gaps in reporting included the absence of a sample size rationale (reported for 25% of all studies and 31% of summative studies) and incomplete sociodemographic descriptive data (complete age, sex/gender, and race/ethnicity reported for 17% of studies).ConclusionsBased on our findings, we suggest four actionable recommendations for future studies that will help to advance the implementation of sDHTs: 1) Consider in-depth assessment of technology usability beyond user satisfaction and ease of use; 2) Expand recruitment to include important user groups such as clinicians and carepartners; 3) Report the rationale for key study design considerations including the sample size; and 4) Provide rich descriptive statistics regarding the study sample to allow a complete understanding of generalizability to other patient populations and contexts of use.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic scoping review of studies describing human factors, human-centered design, and usability of sensor-based digital health technologies

Tandon,

Cobb,

Centra

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To address the need for prospective studies and overcome the limitations of the earlier feasibility study ( 33 ), we conducted a longitudinal randomized crossover study in which four devices with different functionalities were tested on usability, acceptance, and continuous use. Most previous studies only compared these aspects in separate samples where none of the participants have worn all devices ( 33 , 49 , 51 ). Given the potential applications in forensic psychiatry, we included two general purpose fitness trackers, one device providing real-time bio-cuing in daily life and a device that provides the raw data on multiple physiological signals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting the usability of wearable technology in forensic psychiatry to the test: a randomized crossover trial

de Looff,

Noordzij,

Nijman

et al. 2024

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionForensic psychiatric patients receive treatment to address their violent and aggressive behavior with the aim of facilitating their safe reintegration into society. On average, these treatments are effective, but the magnitude of effect sizes tends to be small, even when considering more recent advancements in digital mental health innovations. Recent research indicates that wearable technology has positive effects on the physical and mental health of the general population, and may thus also be of use in forensic psychiatry, both for patients and staff members. Several applications and use cases of wearable technology hold promise, particularly for patients with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning, as these devices are thought to be user-friendly and provide continuous daily feedback.MethodIn the current randomized crossover trial, we addressed several limitations from previous research and compared the (continuous) usability and acceptance of four selected wearable devices. Each device was worn for one week by staff members and patients, amounting to a total of four weeks. Two of the devices were general purpose fitness trackers, while the other two devices used custom made applications designed for bio-cueing and for providing insights into physiological reactivity to daily stressors and events.ResultsOur findings indicated significant differences in usability, acceptance and continuous use between devices. The highest usability scores were obtained for the two fitness trackers (Fitbit and Garmin) compared to the two devices employing custom made applications (Sense-IT and E4 dashboard). The results showed similar outcomes for patients and staff members.DiscussionNone of the devices obtained usability scores that would justify recommendation for future use considering international standards; a finding that raises concerns about the adaptation and uptake of wearable technology in the context of forensic psychiatry. We suggest that improvements in gamification and motivational aspects of wearable technology might be helpful to tackle several challenges related to wearable technology.

show abstract

Experiences, acceptability and feasibility of an isometric exercise intervention for stage 1 hypertension: embedded qualitative study in a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Rees-Roberts,

Borthwick,

Santer

et al. 2024

Pilot Feasibility Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Healthy lifestyle changes for patients with stage 1 hypertension are recommended before antihypertensive medication. Exercise has antihypertensive benefits; however, low adoption and high attrition are common. Patients need easily adoptable, effective and manageable exercise interventions that can be sustained for life. We present participant and stakeholder perceptions of an isometric exercise intervention for stage 1 hypertension delivered in the National Health Service (NHS, UK). Methods An embedded qualitative study within a randomised-controlled feasibility study included intervention arm participants (n = 10), healthcare professionals from participating NHS sites (n = 3) and non-participating NHS sites (n = 5) taking part in semi-structured interviews to explore feasibility of delivering an isometric exercise intervention within the study design and an NHS context. Data was analysed using reflective thematic analysis. Results Three themes were identified: study deliverability; motivators and barriers; support for study participation. Findings indicated that the study was well designed. Health benefits, unwillingness to take medication, altruism and interest in the study helped motivation and adherence. Study support received was good, but healthcare professionals were insecure in intervention delivery with regular training/supervision needed. Perception of health improvement was mixed, but, in some, uptake of wider lifestyle changes resulted from participation. Stakeholders felt that current service challenges/demand would make implementation challenging. Conclusions Despite participant positivity, delivery of an isometric intervention in an NHS setting was considered challenging given the current service demand, although possible with robust effectiveness evidence. Findings support further effectiveness data and implementation development of the isometric exercise intervention. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN13472393. Registered 18 September 2020.

show abstract

How is the usability of commercial activity monitors perceived by older adults and by researchers? A cross-sectional evaluation of community-living individuals

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

A systematic scoping review of studies describing human factors, human-centered design, and usability of sensor-based digital health technologies

A systematic scoping review of studies describing human factors, human-centered design, and usability of sensor-based digital health technologies

Putting the usability of wearable technology in forensic psychiatry to the test: a randomized crossover trial

Experiences, acceptability and feasibility of an isometric exercise intervention for stage 1 hypertension: embedded qualitative study in a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About