Cargando…

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

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 d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Keogh, Alison, Alcock, Lisa, Brown, Philip, Buckley, Ellen, Brozgol, Marina, Gazit, Eran, Hansen, Clint, Scott, Kirsty, Schwickert, Lars, Becker, Clemens, Hausdorff, Jeffrey M., Maetzler, Walter, Rochester, Lynn, Sharrack, Basil, Vogiatzis, Ioannis, Yarnall, Alison, Mazzà, Claudia, Caulfield, Brian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9900162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36756644
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552076221150745
_version_ 1784882787909632000
author Keogh, Alison
Alcock, Lisa
Brown, Philip
Buckley, Ellen
Brozgol, Marina
Gazit, Eran
Hansen, Clint
Scott, Kirsty
Schwickert, Lars
Becker, Clemens
Hausdorff, Jeffrey M.
Maetzler, Walter
Rochester, Lynn
Sharrack, Basil
Vogiatzis, Ioannis
Yarnall, Alison
Mazzà, Claudia
Caulfield, Brian
author_facet Keogh, Alison
Alcock, Lisa
Brown, Philip
Buckley, Ellen
Brozgol, Marina
Gazit, Eran
Hansen, Clint
Scott, Kirsty
Schwickert, Lars
Becker, Clemens
Hausdorff, Jeffrey M.
Maetzler, Walter
Rochester, Lynn
Sharrack, Basil
Vogiatzis, Ioannis
Yarnall, Alison
Mazzà, Claudia
Caulfield, Brian
author_sort Keogh, Alison
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9900162
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99001622023-02-07 Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study Keogh, Alison Alcock, Lisa Brown, Philip Buckley, Ellen Brozgol, Marina Gazit, Eran Hansen, Clint Scott, Kirsty Schwickert, Lars Becker, Clemens Hausdorff, Jeffrey M. Maetzler, Walter Rochester, Lynn Sharrack, Basil Vogiatzis, Ioannis Yarnall, Alison Mazzà, Claudia Caulfield, Brian Digit Health Original Research 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. SAGE Publications 2023-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9900162/ /pubmed/36756644 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552076221150745 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Keogh, Alison
Alcock, Lisa
Brown, Philip
Buckley, Ellen
Brozgol, Marina
Gazit, Eran
Hansen, Clint
Scott, Kirsty
Schwickert, Lars
Becker, Clemens
Hausdorff, Jeffrey M.
Maetzler, Walter
Rochester, Lynn
Sharrack, Basil
Vogiatzis, Ioannis
Yarnall, Alison
Mazzà, Claudia
Caulfield, Brian
Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study
title Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study
title_full Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study
title_fullStr Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study
title_full_unstemmed Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study
title_short Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study
title_sort acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: observations from the mobilise-d technical validation study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9900162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36756644
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552076221150745
work_keys_str_mv AT keoghalison acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT alcocklisa acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT brownphilip acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT buckleyellen acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT brozgolmarina acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT gaziteran acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT hansenclint acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT scottkirsty acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT schwickertlars acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT beckerclemens acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT hausdorffjeffreym acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT maetzlerwalter acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT rochesterlynn acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT sharrackbasil acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT vogiatzisioannis acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT yarnallalison acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT mazzaclaudia acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy
AT caulfieldbrian acceptabilityofwearabledevicesformeasuringmobilityremotelyobservationsfromthemobilisedtechnicalvalidationstudy