Physiotherapists' and Physiotherapy Students' Perspectives on the Use of Mobile or Wearable Technology in Their Practice

Blumenthal, Jenna; Wilkinson, Andrea; Chignell, Mark

doi:10.3138/ptc.2016-100.e

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2). The number of studies assessing implementation outcome measures has increased over time, with one study published in 1998 [79], through to eight studies published in 2018/2019 [27,42,45,49,56,62,76,77]. Studies were predominantly conducted in high-income countries, with the majority conducted in the USA alone (n = 22) [25, 29, 30, 35, 37-39, 44, 46, 47, 53, 57, 58, 64, 66, 67].…”

Section: Selection Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Implementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings. Method: The following data sources were searched from inception to March 2019, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Studies that evaluated the measurement properties of implementation outcome instruments in physical healthcare settings were eligible for inclusion. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide the inclusion of implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Psychometric quality of the included instruments was assessed using the Contemporary Psychometrics checklist (ConPsy). Usability was determined by number of items per instrument.

show abstract

Section: Selection Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twelve (12/65) scales scored 7 or more (of the maximum possible score = 22), indicating greater psychometric strength on the ConPsy checklist [23,45,46,61,69,[76][77][78]. Detailed ConPsy scores for each scale are presented in Additional file 4.…”

Section: Psychometric Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ere is some research, on the other hand, which indicates that the gender variable is not decisive for using wearable devices since there are no significant differences in use between men and women [54][55][56].…”

Section: Mobile Information Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical Study Based on the Perceptions of Patients and Relatives about the Acceptance of Wearable Devices to Improve Their Health and Prevent Possible Diseases

Guillén‐Gámez

Mayorga-Fernández

2019

Mobile Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, there has been a technological revolution affecting all areas of life, including health. Following this trend, a series of electronic devices called wearable technology have emerged with the aim of improving the quality of people’s life. These devices are made up of tools that help to prevent the development of chronic diseases and fight against the aging of society by monitoring the vital signs of users. Despite the advantages of using these devices from medical and health points of view, it is necessary to know the opinion of users regarding their use. For this reason, this study has been proposed. The purpose of this study is to analyse the perceptions of the subjects involved in the research regarding the acceptance of wearable devices, taking into account variables, such as age and gender. To this end, a nonexperimental, ex post facto design has been composed that combines descriptive and inferential techniques, with a sample of 606 patients and relatives belonging to a public health centre in the community of Madrid.

show abstract

“…However, despite the accessibility and potential advantages of IMUs, their uptake and acceptance by health professionals remain a big challenge [15][16][17]. This is certainly related to the fact that they have mostly been developed considering research and/or engineering requirements without the involvement of clinical end-users [2,5,11,16,18]. Furthermore, clinical validations of IMU-based systems are rarely conducted [2,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinicians’ perspectives on inertial measurement units in clinical practice

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been increasingly popular in rehabilitation research. However, despite their accessibility and potential advantages, their uptake and acceptance by health professionals remain a big challenge. The development of an IMU-based clinical tool must bring together engineers, researchers and clinicians. This study is part of a developmental process with the investigation of clinicians’ perspectives about IMUs. Clinicians from four rehabilitation centers were invited to a 30-minute presentation on IMUs. Then, two one-hour focus groups were conducted with volunteer clinicians in each rehabilitation center on: 1) IMUs and their clinical usefulness, and 2) IMUs data analysis and visualization interface. Fifteen clinicians took part in the first focus groups. They expressed their thoughts on: 1) categories of variables that would be useful to measure with IMUs in clinical practice, and 2) desired characteristics of the IMUs. Twenty-three clinicians participated to the second focus groups, discussing: 1) functionalities, 2) display options, 3) clinical data reported and associated information, and 4) data collection duration. Potential influence of IMUs on clinical practice and added value were discussed in both focus groups. Clinicians expressed positive opinions about the use of IMUs, but their expectations were high before considering using IMUs in their practice.

show abstract

Physiotherapists' and Physiotherapy Students' Perspectives on the Use of Mobile or Wearable Technology in Their Practice

Cited by 27 publications

References 37 publications

Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review

Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review

Empirical Study Based on the Perceptions of Patients and Relatives about the Acceptance of Wearable Devices to Improve Their Health and Prevent Possible Diseases

Clinicians’ perspectives on inertial measurement units in clinical practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About