Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
2.1 Body-Worn Sensor Design: What Do Patients and Clinicians Want?…
2.1 Body-Worn Sensor Design: What Do Patients and Clinicians Want?
abstract
:red_flag: focus on user preferences when designing wearable sensor system
key preferences
a body-worn sensor system -> compact & embedded & simple to operate & maintain
should not affect daily behavior
not replace to seek a health care professional directly
introduction
obtaining data using wearable technology
improvements -> preventative & rehabilitation approaches
advantages -> improve patients life quality & reduce the cost of care & be integrated into the person’s cognitive
user acceptance is overlooked
demand: non-invasive devices -> detect signs & not interfere in daily routine
demand: increasingly important if chronic diseases
device complex VS medical product efficient -> damage
wearable tech adopted by clinicians first
acceptance & refusal & consideration
how will users react to it
:red_flag: user preferences of non-invasive sensors
intact skin and are not embedded in the body
both from patient’s and clinician’s perspective
materials & methods
Criteria
:pencil2: patient population -> any person suffering from a clinically recognized condition
:pencil2: clinicians -> qualified health professionals, such as physicians, psychiatrists, nurses, physiotherapists, or any other allied health professional
outcome: user preferences for non-invasive body-worn sensor systems
:star: qualitative research
if an appropriate sample was used
if a suitable method of data collection was selected
if an appropriate analysis was performed
if results were transferable to other settings;
if the study adequately addressed potential ethical issues;
if the overall study was clear in its setup and purpose
max -> 6
search method
database
EMBASE
CurrentContentsConnect
EEEI
MEDLINE
key words ......
collection & analysis
all preferences of patients and clinicians were obtained
older people above 65 -> an additional subgroup
4.results
summary: 884 papers -> 77 potential by title & abstract & descriptors -> 11 papers contain outcome -> scored with marking system
patient’s preferences
Geriatrics
wireless sensornetwork(WSN)
93% of patients in a elderly care facility accepted a wearable system
location and identification microchips
Stroke
user feedback was used to change the design of their devices
usability issue & user preference
tolerate equipment reduce
confidence of system decrease -> incorrect use of equipment
:star: correct garment placement -> raise again -> address
:pencil2: user like quantifiable data rather than praise
Cardiac
concerns of patients
stigmatization
size and weight of the system
altering normal functional performance
sensors becoming unattached from the patient
the number of related hospital visits that were needed
wearable ECG devices
usability & performance issues from both the
patient & practitioner’s perspective
Spinal Cord
a electronic glove
feedback & fit on arm & weight & size &clothing wear over the device
problem: lack of reliability & difficult to manipulate, place and dry & difficult to set parameters
clinician’s preferences
Geriatrics
88% of nurses & 97% of doctors user acceptance
dynamically adapt to different situations -> popular
Stroke
enable stroke survivors to independently undertake exercises at home
sensors in a garment
resultsinreal-time
prompts training
to assist the patient in their training
library of reference movements
Neuromuscular Diseases
a simple interface with a minimum amount of options
motion capture
People Above 65 years
important
did not want the system design to incorporate any social aspects
dont want to pay -> government or children
forget to wear
relate WSNs to the conventional panic alarm system
reliability and validity of the device
embedded sensors into clothing (accessories)
clear error
slightly: not visible
wrist
info -> visual & alarm -> auditory
others clean
hire
reduce the need to travel to clinics and hospitals
not important
privacy -> no camera
wear additionally
trunk & belt & ankle & armpit.
imagination
weight -> sensor less or equal to that of a watch (20–30 g)
size -> sensor equal or less than a small box of matches (15–20 mm 3 )
multiple answers
80% on-person sensing
21% failed -> reject to use again
privacy
other laugh at their failure
11% don't want suggestion
store & analyzed -> OK -> useful
discussion
user preferences & acceptability
ignore user preference -> wrong
all articles -> system/product tested & author -> link -> introducing bias & limiting the validity of the conclusions
user preferences and acceptability -> lack high-quality research studies
4/6 (2~5)
generic issues
patients
small and embedded sensors
keen to minimize the physical impact of anywearablesystem
not directly visible or obvious
esthetics -> caused by small need
not affect normal daily behavior
tested for a wide range of user specific activities to guarantee low obtrusiveness of the design throughout the day
notable -> low acceptance
improve the quality of gathered data
culture & context
patient’s partner experiences about technology
clinicians
restricted recording time
limited storage capacity
techniques for attaching the device
data real-time
instant diagnosis possible
participation of healthcare practitioners and patient’s in design analyses and tests is very important
summary
clinicians want to have direct, quick and easy access to the data
the acceptance of any system in the health care industry depends on the perception of the user
:red_flag:User-centered design -> essential -> early stage
:star: methods
contextual inquiry
user profiling
task analysis
surveys & interviews & focus groups
recurring themes
compliance -> low -> remove sensors
loose from clothing
join in social act -> lose
sports & water based act
discomfort
record everything
lack validation
validation standardization
small participants & limited number of data
common
compact, preferably embedded and simple to operate.
available alongside the work of health professionals
reduce the number of journeys to clinic and hospital.
not affect normal daily behavior.