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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |