Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30912756›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

Perception of Older Adults Toward Smartwatch Technology for Assessing Pain and Related Patient-Reported Outcomes: Pilot Study.

Todd Matthew Manini, Tonatiuh Mendoza, Manoj Battula, Anis Davoudi, Matin Kheirkhahan, Mary Ellen Young, Eric Weber, Roger Benton Fillingim, Parisa Rashidi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Wearable health monitoring: wave of the future or waste of time?Global cardiology science & practice · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Todd Matthew ManiniDepartment of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5970-4462
Tonatiuh MendozaDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6726-4460
Manoj BattulaDepartment of Computer and Information Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8362-027X
Anis DavoudiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3383-9481
Matin KheirkhahanDepartment of Computer and Information Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1057-5073
Mary Ellen YoungDepartment of Occupational Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6401-4346
Eric WeberDepartment of Community Dentistry and Behavioral Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3139-2444
Roger Benton FillingimDepartment of Community Dentistry and Behavioral Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7699-8183
Parisa RashidiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4530-2048
University of Florida · USUniversity of Florida Health · US

Funding

University of Florida Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC)P30AG028740 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI CHRISTIAAN LEEUWENBURGH · 2007 to 2026
$22.8M
Wearable Technology Infrastructure to Enhance Capacity for Real-Time, Online Assessment and Mobility (ROAMM) of Intervening Health Events in Older AdultsR21AG059207 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MANINI, TODD, RANKA, SANJAY · 2019 to 2020
$417k
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028740NIA NIH HHS R21 AG059207
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic pain, including arthritis, affects about 100 million adults in the United States. Complexity and diversity of the pain experience across time and people and its fluctuations across and within days show the need for valid pain reports that do not rely on patient's long-term recall capability. Smartwatches can be used as digital ecological momentary assessment (EMA) tools for real-time collection of pain scores. Smartwatches are generally less expensive than smartphones, are highly portable, and have a simpler user interface, providing an excellent medium for continuous data collection and enabling a higher compliance rate.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the attitudes and perceptions of older adults towards design and technological aspects of a smartwatch framework for measuring patient report outcomes (PRO) as an EMA tool.

methodsA focus group session was conducted to explore the perception of participants towards smartwatch technology and its utility for PRO assessment. Participants included older adults (age 65+), with unilateral or bilateral symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. A preliminary user interface with server communication capability was developed and deployed on 10 Samsung Gear S3 smartwatches and provided to the users during the focus group. Pain was designated as the main PRO, while fatigue, mood, and sleep quality were included as auxiliary PROs. Pre-planned topics included participants' attitude towards the smartwatch technology, usability of the custom-designed app interface, and suitability of the smartwatch technology for PRO assessment. Discussions were transcribed, and content analysis with theme characterization was performed to identify and code the major themes.

resultsWe recruited 19 participants (age 65+) who consented to take part in the focus group study. The overall attitude of the participants toward the smartwatch technology was positive. They showed interest in the direct phone-call capability, availability of extra apps such as the weather apps and sensors for tracking health and wellness such as accelerometer and heart rate sensor. Nearly three-quarters of participants showed willingness to participate in a one-year study to wear the watch daily. Concerns were raised regarding usability, including accessibility (larger icons), notification customization, and intuitive interface design (unambiguous icons and assessment scales). Participants expressed interest in using smartwatch technology for PRO assessment and the availability of methods for sharing data with health care providers.

conclusionsAll participants had overall positive views of the smartwatch technology for measuring PROs to facilitate patient-provider communications and to provide more targeted treatments and interventions in the future. Usability concerns were the major issues that will require special consideration in future smartwatch PRO user interface designs, especially accessibility issues, notification design, and use of intuitive assessment scales.

Indexed as

PerceptionAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMobile ApplicationsPain MeasurementPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPilot ProjectsQualitative ResearchTechnology Assessment, Biomedicalecological momentary assessment (EMA)focus grouppatient-reported outcomes (PRO)smartwatch

Identifiers

PMID30912756
PMCPMC6454335
OpenAlexW2908066508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.