Accepted for/Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Date Submitted: Jul 31, 2019
Date Accepted: Jan 28, 2020
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
An observational study comparing the usability and acceptability of wearable sensors in a real-world context of older Irish adults.
ABSTRACT
Background:
Wearable devices are valuable assessment tools for clinical trial outcomes. To be successfully deployed participants must be willing to wear them, yet usability studies often fail to test devices beyond 24 hours.
Objective:
This study therefore compared multiple wearable sensors in a real-world context, to establish their usability within an older adult (>50 years) population.
Methods:
Eight adults wore seven devices for a minimum of one week each; Actigraph GT9x; Actibelt; Actiwatch; Biovotion; Hexoskin; Mc10 Biostamp; Wavelet. Usability was established through mixed methods using semi-structured interviews and three questionnaires: The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory; The System Usability Scale (SUS); and an acceptability questionnaire.
Results:
Results demonstrated that no device was considered optimal as all scored below average in the SUS (median [inter-quartile range]; min-max= 57.5 [12.5]; 47.5-63.8). Importantly, participants were willing to accept less comfort, less device discretion, and high charging burdens if devices provided them with feedback.
Conclusions:
This study highlights the importance of understanding the needs of participants when selecting a wearable device within a clinical trial. Based on the results, two context specific recommendations can be made: 1) If participants cannot receive feedback, a simple wrist worn device that acts as a watch should be selected. 2) If feedback is allowed, a device that offers feedback is a necessity to support compliance. This provides greater flexibility in the type of device that may be used, and where it needs to be worn. Clinical Trial: Not applicable
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.