Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32012078›Full record

Observational studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Engagement and Participant Experiences With Consumer Smartwatches for Health Research: Longitudinal, Observational Feasibility Study.

Anna L Beukenhorst, Kelly Howells, Louise Cook, John McBeth, Terence W O'Neill, Matthew J Parkes, Caroline Sanders, Jamie C Sergeant, Katy S Weihrich, William G Dixon

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

10 authors.

Anna L BeukenhorstCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1765-4890
Kelly HowellsThe National Institute for Health Research, School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7281-2492
Louise CookCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4170-5018
John McBethCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7047-2183
Terence W O'NeillCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8896-4677
Matthew J ParkesCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1574-9933
Caroline SandersThe National Institute for Health Research, School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0539-928X
Jamie C SergeantCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9000-4413
Katy S WeihrichCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8528-8397
William G DixonCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5881-4857

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 21225Arthritis Research UK 21755Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MC_PC_17172Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1Medical Research Council MR/N013751/1Versus Arthritis 21225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWearables provide opportunities for frequent health data collection and symptom monitoring. The feasibility of using consumer cellular smartwatches to provide information both on symptoms and contemporary sensor data has not yet been investigated.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of using cellular smartwatches to capture multiple patient-reported outcomes per day alongside continuous physical activity data over a 3-month period in people living with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

methodsFor the KOALAP (Knee OsteoArthritis: Linking Activity and Pain) study, a novel cellular smartwatch app for health data collection was developed. Participants (age ≥50 years; self-diagnosed knee OA) received a smartwatch (Huawei Watch 2) with the KOALAP app. When worn, the watch collected sensor data and prompted participants to self-report outcomes multiple times per day. Participants were invited for a baseline and follow-up interview to discuss their motivations and experiences. Engagement with the watch was measured using daily watch wear time and the percentage completion of watch questions. Interview transcripts were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis.

resultsA total of 26 people participated in the study. Good use and engagement were observed over 3 months: most participants wore the watch on 75% (68/90) of days or more, for a median of 11 hours. The number of active participants declined over the study duration, especially in the final week. Among participants who remained active, neither watch time nor question completion percentage declined over time. Participants were mainly motivated to learn about their symptoms and enjoyed the self-tracking aspects of the watch. Barriers to full engagement were battery life limitations, technical problems, and unfulfilled expectations of the watch. Participants reported that they would have liked to report symptoms more than 4 or 5 times per day.

conclusionsThis study shows that capture of patient-reported outcomes multiple times per day with linked sensor data from a smartwatch is feasible over at least a 3-month period. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/10238.

Indexed as

MotivationQuality of LifeWearable Electronic DevicesExerciseFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Researchmedical informatics computingmHealthmobile phonemusculoskeletal diseasespatient-reported outcomesself-trackingsmartwatch/wearable

Identifiers

PMID32012078
PMCPMC7016619

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.