Dataset Information

Perceived user preferences and usability evaluation of mainstream wearable devices for health monitoring.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are many problems with fitness trackers, such as device usability, which limit their large-scale application, and relevant studies are limited in terms of their sample size and evaluation methods. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the perceived usability of various mainstream fitness trackers on the market, and to learn about user feedback on feature preferences for each device.

Methods

Trial use of seven mainstream fitness trackers (two smart watches and five smart wristbands) followed by a survey study were applied. The questionnaire was specifically developed for this study, which included two parts (user preferences and device usability in five dimensions). We recruited users to test the devices for at least 30 days and asked experienced users to provide feedback in order to evaluate each device, including the rating and user preference of each device.

Results

We received 388 valid questionnaires, in which users rated their responses on a five-point Likert scale. (1) User preference: the average user satisfaction was 3.50-3.86 (points), and the rating for willingness to buy averaged between 3.36 and 3.59. More users were willing to wear (58.3-81.3%) and purchase (56.8-83.0%) the devices than were not. The top three general feature preferences were daily activity tracking, heart health monitoring, and professional fitness tracking. The top three health-related feature preferences were heart rate monitoring, daily pedometer, and professional fitness tracking. (2) Usability evaluation: product design was rated from 3.57 to 4.00; durability, 3.63-4.26; ease of use, 3.70-3.90; added features, 3.30-3.83; and user-rated accuracy, 3.44-3.78. A significant difference was observed in the rating of product design and durability among the different devices (p < 0.05) score.

Conclusions

Users generally had positive subjective intent regarding fitness trackers but were less satisfied with their cost effectiveness. The users preferred health related features such as heart health monitoring, and professional fitness tracking. The rating of most of the current mainstream fitness trackers was fair with some significant differences among the devices. Thus, further improvement is needed.

SUBMITTER: Jia Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6064199 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perceived user preferences and usability evaluation of mainstream wearable devices for health monitoring.

Jia Yuxi Y Wang Wei W Wen Dong D Liang Lizhong L Gao Li L Lei Jianbo J

PeerJ 20180725

<h4>Background</h4>There are many problems with fitness trackers, such as device usability, which limit their large-scale application, and relevant studies are limited in terms of their sample size and evaluation methods. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the perceived usability of various mainstream fitness trackers on the market, and to learn about user feedback on feature preferences for each device.<h4>Methods</h4>Trial use of seven mainstream fitness trackers (two smart watches and f ...[more]

PMID: 30065893

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWearable devices have the potential to promote a healthy lifestyle because of their real-time data monitoring capabilities. However, device usability is a critical factor that determines whether they will be adopted on a large scale. Usability studies on wearable devices are still scarce.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the functions and attributes of seven mainstream wearable devices and to evaluate their usability.MethodsThe wearable devices selected were the Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S, Fitbit Surge, Jawbone Up3, Mi Band, Huawei Honor B2, and Misfit Shine. A mixed method of feature comparison and a System Usability Scale (SUS) evaluation based on 388 participants was applied; the higher the SUS score, the better the usability of the product.ResultsFor features, all devices had step counting, an activity timer, and distance recording functions. The Samsung Gear S had a unique sports track recording feature and the Huawei Honor B2 had a unique wireless earphone. The Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S, Jawbone Up3, and Fitbit Surge could measure heart rate. All the devices were able to monitor sleep, except the Apple Watch. For product characteristics, including attributes such as weight, battery life, price, and 22 functions such as step counting, activity time, activity type identification, sleep monitoring, and expandable new features, we found a very weak negative correlation between the SUS scores and price (r=-.10, P=.03) and devices that support expandable new features (r=-.11, P=.02), and a very weak positive correlation between the SUS scores and devices that support the activity type identification function (r=.11, P=.02). The Huawei Honor B2 received the highest score of mean 67.6 (SD 16.1); the lowest Apple Watch score was only 61.4 (SD 14.7). No significant difference was observed among brands. The SUS score had a moderate positive correlation with the user's experience (length of time the device was used) (r=.32, P<.001); participants in the medical and health care industries gave a significantly higher score (mean 61.1, SD 17.9 vs mean 68.7, SD 14.5, P=.03).ConclusionsThe functions of wearable devices tend to be homogeneous and usability is similar across various brands. Overall, Mi Band had the lowest price and the lightest weight. Misfit Shine had the longest battery life and most functions, and participants in the medical and health care industries had the best evaluation of wearable devices. The perceived usability of mainstream wearable devices is unsatisfactory and customer loyalty is not high. A consumer's SUS rating for a wearable device is related to their personal situation instead of the device brand. Device manufacturers should put more effort into developing innovative functions and improving the usability of their products by integrating more cognitive behavior change techniques.

Project description:BackgroundWearable exoskeletons can be a powerful tool for the facilitation of ambulation of complete Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) subjects, which has several psychological and physical advantages. However, exoskeleton control is difficult for this group of users and requires a long period of training. People with SCI not only lack the motor control, but also miss the sensory information from below the level of the lesion, which is for example very important in their perception of body posture and makes balancing with an exoskeleton difficult. It is hypothesized that through sensory substitution part of the missing sensory information can be provided and might thereby improve the control of an exoskeleton. However, it is not known which information would be most important to receive while using an exoskeleton and how this feedback should be provided.MethodsTo investigate the preferences of users of an exoskeleton, a questionnaire was filled out by 10 SCI subjects who underwent a training program with a commercial exoskeleton (ReWalk). The questionnaire consisted of questions about the use of the exoskeleton to identify which information is missing and which instructions from the therapists were needed to be able to control the exoskeleton. The second part of the questionnaire focused on the possibilities of sensory feedback and preferences for stimulation methods (auditory, vibrotactile or visual) and feedback timing (discrete or continuous) were investigated. Furthermore, six options for feedback parameters (step initiation, continuous and discrete gait phases, foot position and mediolateral and anteroposterior weight shift) were proposed and the respondents were asked to indicate their preferences.ResultsThree feedback parameters (feedback about mediolateral and anteroposterior weight shift and feedback about step initiation) were considered as possibly helpful by the respondents. Furthermore, there were slight preferences for the use of vibrotactile (over auditory and visual) and discrete (over continuous) feedback.ConclusionsThe answers of the respondents on the optimal feedback parameters were rather variable and therefore it is recommended to let the users choose their preferred feedback system during a training session with several feedback options. However, there are slight preferences for the use of vibrotactile stimulation provided in a discrete way.

Project description:Abstract Aims High blood pressure (BP) is the commonest modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless BP devices offer potential solutions; however, little is known about their validity and utility. We aimed to systematically review the validity, features and clinical use of wearable cuffless BP devices. Methods and results We searched MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore and the Cochrane Database till December 2019 for studies that reported validating cuffless BP devices. We extracted information about study characteristics, device features, validation processes, and clinical applications. Devices were classified according to their functions and features. We defined devices with a mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) biases of <5 mmHg as valid as a consensus. Our definition of validity did not include assessment of device measurement precision, which is assessed by standard deviation of the mean difference—a critical component of ISO protocol validation criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to summarise the mean biases for SBP and DBP across studies. Of the 430 studies identified, 16 studies (15 devices, 974 participants) were selected. The majority of devices (81.3%) used photoplethysmography to estimate BP against a reference device; other technologies included tonometry, auscultation and electrocardiogram. In addition to BP and heart rate, some devices also measured night-time BP (n = 5), sleep monitoring (n = 3), oxygen saturation (n = 3), temperature (n = 2) and electrocardiogram (n = 3). Eight devices showed mean biases of <5 mmHg for SBP and DBP compared with a reference device and three devices were commercially available. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the wearable and reference devices for SBP (pooled mean difference = 3.42 mmHg, 95% CI: −2.17, 9.01, I2 95.4%) and DBP (pooled mean = 1.16 mmHg, 95% CI: −1.26, 3.58, I2 87.1%). Conclusion Several cuffless BP devices are currently available using different technologies, offering the potential for continuous BP monitoring. The variation in standards and validation protocols limited the comparability of findings across studies and the identification of the most accurate device. Challenges such as validation using standard protocols and in real-life settings must be overcome before they can be recommended for uptake into clinical practice. Graphical Abstract Graphical abstract Wearable BP device system.

Project description:BackgroundContinuous monitoring of the vital signs of critical care patients is an essential component of critical care medicine. For this task, clinicians use a patient monitor (PM), which conveys patient vital sign data through a screen and an auditory alarm system. Some limitations with PMs have been identified in the literature, such as the need for visual contact with the PM screen, which could result in reduced focus on the patient in specific scenarios, and the amount of noise generated by the PM alarm system. With the advancement of material science and electronic technology, wearable devices have emerged as a potential solution for these problems. This review presents the findings of several studies that focused on the usability and human factors of wearable devices designed for use in critical care patient monitoring.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to review the current state of the art in wearable devices intended for use by clinicians to monitor vital signs of critical care patients in hospital settings, with a focus on the usability and human factors of the devices.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of relevant databases was conducted, and 20 studies were identified and critically reviewed by the authors.ResultsWe identified 3 types of wearable devices: tactile, head-mounted, and smartwatch displays. In most cases, these devices were intended for use by anesthesiologists, but nurses and surgeons were also identified as potentially important users of wearable technology in critical care medicine. Although the studies investigating tactile displays revealed their potential to improve clinical monitoring, usability problems related to comfort need to be overcome before they can be considered suitable for use in clinical practice. Only a few studies investigated the usability and human factors of tactile displays by conducting user testing involving critical care professionals. The studies of head-mounted displays (HMDs) revealed that these devices could be useful in critical care medicine, particularly from an ergonomics point of view. By reducing the amount of time the user spends averting their gaze from the patient to a separate screen, HMDs enable clinicians to improve their patient focus and reduce the potential of repetitive strain injury.ConclusionsResearchers and designers of new wearable devices for use in critical care medicine should strive to achieve not only enhanced performance but also enhanced user experience for their users, especially in terms of comfort and ease of use. These aspects of wearable displays must be extensively tested with the intended end users in a setting that properly reflects the intended context of use before their adoption can be considered in clinical settings.

Project description:BackgroundStudies on the usability of health care devices are becoming more common, although usability standards are not necessarily specified and followed. Yet, there is little knowledge about the impact of the context of use on the usability outcome. It is specified in the usability standard (ISO 9241-11, 2018) of a device that it may be affected by its context of use and especially by the characteristics of its users. Among these, prior health knowledge (ie, knowledge about human body functioning) is crucial. However, no study has shown that prior health knowledge influences the usability of medical devices.ObjectiveOur study aimed to fill this gap by analyzing the relationship between the usability of two home medical devices (soon to be used in the context of ambulatory surgery) and prior health knowledge through an experimental approach.MethodsFor assessing the usability of two home medical devices (blood pressure monitor and pulse oximeter), user tests were conducted among 149 students. A mixed-methods approach (subjective vs objective) using a variety of standard instruments was adopted (direct observation, video analysis, and questionnaires). Participants completed a questionnaire to show the extent of their previous health knowledge and then operated both devices randomly. Efficiency (ie, handling time) and effectiveness (ie, number of handling errors) measures were collected by video analysis. Satisfaction measures were collected by a questionnaire (system usability scale [SUS]). The qualitative observational data were coded using inductive analysis by two independent researchers specialized in cognitive psychology and cognitive ergonomics. Correlational analyses and clusters were performed to test how usability relates to sociodemographic characteristics and prior health knowledge.ResultsThe results indicated a lack of usability for both devices. Regarding the blood pressure monitor (137 participants), users made approximately 0.77 errors (SD 1.49), and the mean SUS score was 72.4 (SD 21.07), which is considered "satisfactory." The pulse oximeter (147 participants) appeared easier to use, but participants made more errors (mean 0.99, SD 0.92), and the mean SUS score was 71.52 (SD 17.29), which is considered "satisfactory." The results showed a low negative and significant correlation only between the effectiveness of the two devices and previous knowledge (blood pressure monitor: r=-0.191, P=.03; pulse oximeter: r=-0.263, P=.001). More subtly, we experimentally identified the existence of a threshold level (χ²2,146=10.9, P=.004) for health knowledge to correctly use the pulse oximeter, but this was missing for the blood pressure monitor.ConclusionsThis study has the following two contributions: (1) a theoretical interest highlighting the importance of user characteristics including prior health knowledge on usability outcomes and (2) an applied interest to provide recommendations to designers and medical staff.

Dataset Information

Perceived user preferences and usability evaluation of mainstream wearable devices for health monitoring.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Perceived user preferences and usability evaluation of mainstream wearable devices for health monitoring.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets