Dataset Information

Assessing the usability of wearable devices to measure gait and physical activity in chronic conditions: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The World Health Organisation's global strategy for digital health emphasises the importance of patient involvement. Understanding the usability and acceptability of wearable devices is a core component of this. However, usability assessments to date have focused predominantly on healthy adults. There is a need to understand the patient perspective of wearable devices in participants with chronic health conditions.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify any study design that included a usability assessment of wearable devices to measure mobility, through gait and physical activity, within five cohorts with chronic conditions (Parkinson's disease [PD], multiple sclerosis [MS], congestive heart failure, [CHF], chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder [COPD], and proximal femoral fracture [PFF]).

Results

Thirty-seven studies were identified. Substantial heterogeneity in the quality of reporting, the methods used to assess usability, the devices used, and the aims of the studies precluded any meaningful comparisons. Questionnaires were used in the majority of studies (70.3%; n = 26) with a reliance on intervention specific measures (n = 16; 61.5%). For those who used interviews (n = 17; 45.9%), no topic guides were provided, while methods of analysis were not reported in over a third of studies (n = 6; 35.3%).

Conclusion

Usability of wearable devices is a poorly measured and reported variable in chronic health conditions. Although the heterogeneity in how these devices are implemented implies acceptance, the patient voice should not be assumed. In the absence of being able to make specific usability conclusions, the results of this review instead recommends that future research needs to: (1) Conduct usability assessments as standard, irrespective of the cohort under investigation or the type of study undertaken. (2) Adhere to basic reporting standards (e.g. COREQ) including the basic details of the study. Full copies of any questionnaires and interview guides should be supplied through supplemental files. (3) Utilise mixed methods research to gather a more comprehensive understanding of usability than either qualitative or quantitative research alone will provide. (4) Use previously validated questionnaires alongside any intervention specific measures.

SUBMITTER: Keogh A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8444467 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:Distinct gait characteristics like short steps and shuffling gait are prototypical signs commonly observed in Parkinson's disease. Routinely assessed by observation through clinicians, gait is rated as part of categorical clinical scores. There is an increasing need to provide quantitative measurements of gait, e.g. to provide detailed information about disease progression. Recently, we developed a wearable sensor-based gait analysis system as diagnostic tool that objectively assesses gait parameter in Parkinson's disease without the need of having a specialized gait laboratory. This system consists of inertial sensor units attached laterally to both shoes. The computed target of measures are spatiotemporal gait parameters including stride length and time, stance phase time, heel-strike and toe-off angle, toe clearance, and inter-stride variation from gait sequences. To translate this prototype into medical care, we conducted a cross-sectional study including 190 Parkinson's disease patients and 101 age-matched controls and measured gait characteristics during a 4x10 meter walk at the subjects' preferred speed. To determine intraindividual changes in gait, we monitored the gait characteristics of 63 patients longitudinally. Cross-sectional analysis revealed distinct spatiotemporal gait parameter differences reflecting typical Parkinson's disease gait characteristics including short steps, shuffling gait, and postural instability specific for different disease stages and levels of motor impairment. The longitudinal analysis revealed that gait parameters were sensitive to changes by mirroring the progressive nature of Parkinson's disease and corresponded to physician ratings. Taken together, we successfully show that wearable sensor-based gait analysis reaches clinical applicability providing a high biomechanical resolution for gait impairment in Parkinson's disease. These data demonstrate the feasibility and applicability of objective wearable sensor-based gait measurement in Parkinson's disease reaching high technological readiness levels for both, large scale clinical studies and individual patient care.

Project description:BackgroundWearable biometric monitoring devices (BMDs) have the potential to transform the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by shifting the collection of outcome data from single measurements at predefined time points to dense continuous measurements.MethodsMethodological systematic review to understand how recent RCTs used BMDs to measure outcomes and to describe the reporting of these RCTs. Electronic search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE and completed a page-by-page hand search in five leading medical journals between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted all primary and secondary outcomes collected using BMDs, and assessed (1) the definitions used to summarize BMD outcome data; (2) whether the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors was reported; (3) the discrepancy with outcomes prespecified in public clinical trial registries; and (4) the methods used to manage missing and incomplete BMD outcome data.ResultsOf the 4562 records screened, 75 RCTs were eligible. Among them, 24% tested a pharmacological intervention and 57% used an inertial measurement sensor to measure physical activity. Included trials involved 464 outcomes (average of 6 [SD = 8] outcomes per trial). In total, 35 trials used a BMD to measure a primary outcome. Several issues affected the value and transparency of trials using BMDs to measure outcomes. First, the definition of outcomes used in the trials was highly heterogeneous (e.g., 21 diabetes trials had 266 outcomes and 153 had different unique definitions to measure diabetes control), which limited the combination and comparison of results. Second, information on the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors used was lacking in 74% of trials. Third, half (53%) of the outcomes measured with BMDs had not been prespecified, with a high risk of outcome reporting bias. Finally, reporting on the management of incomplete outcome data (e.g., due to suboptimal compliance with the BMD) was absent in 68% of RCTs.ConclusionsUse of BMDs to measure outcomes is becoming the norm rather than the exception in many fields. Yet, trialists need to account for several methodological issues when specifying and conducting RCTs using these novel tools.

Project description:BackgroundThere 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.MethodsTrial 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsUsers 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.

Project description:BackgroundWalking patterns can provide important indications of a person's health status and be beneficial in the early diagnosis of individuals with a potential walking disorder. For appropriate gait analysis, it is critical that natural functional walking characteristics are captured, rather than those experienced in artificial or observed settings. To better understand the extent to which setting influences gait patterns, and particularly whether observation plays a varying role on subjects of different ages, the current study investigates to what extent people walk differently in lab versus real-world environments and whether age dependencies exist.MethodsThe walking patterns of 20 young and 20 elderly healthy subjects were recorded with five wearable inertial measurement units (ZurichMOVE sensors) attached to both ankles, both wrists and the chest. An automated detection process based on dynamic time warping was developed to efficiently identify the relevant sequences. From the ZurichMOVE recordings, 15 spatio-temporal gait parameters were extracted, analyzed and compared between motion patterns captured in a controlled lab environment (10 m walking test) and the non-controlled ecologically valid real-world environment (72 h recording) in both groups.ResultsSeveral parameters (Cluster A) showed significant differences between the two environments for both groups, including an increased outward foot rotation, step width, number of steps per 180° turn, stance to swing ratio, and cycle time deviation in the real-world. A number of parameters (Cluster B) showed only significant differences between the two environments for elderly subjects, including a decreased gait velocity (p = 0.0072), decreased cadence (p = 0.0051) and increased cycle time (p = 0.0051) in real-world settings. Importantly, the real-world environment increased the differences in several parameters between the young and elderly groups.ConclusionElderly test subjects walked differently in controlled lab settings compared to their real-world environments, which indicates the need to better understand natural walking patterns under ecologically valid conditions before clinically relevant conclusions can be drawn on a subject's functional status. Moreover, the greater inter-group differences in real-world environments seem promising regarding the sensitive identification of subjects with indications of a walking disorder.