ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021
It's not about the capture, it's about what we can learn": a qualitative study of experts' opinions and experiences regarding the use of wearable sensors to measure gait and physical activity.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessing the usability of wearable devices to measure gait and physical activity in chronic conditions: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021Pooled it
- The Contribution of Machine Learning in the Validation of Commercial Wearable Sensors for Gait Monitoring in Patients: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of a Sensor-Based Platform on the Outcome of Medial Off-Loader Bracing in Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Implementation of wearable activity trackers in hospital rehabilitation: a feasibility study tailored to local settings.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Exploring medication experiences, behaviours, and reminder technology preferences in people with Parkinson's disease: a survey.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- User Experiences of Limb-Worn Wearable Devices for Monitoring Parkinson Disease Motor Function and Blood Pressure: Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Systematic review of wearables assessing medication effect on motor function and symptoms in Parkinson's disease.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- User Experiences and Attitudes Toward Sharing Wearable Activity Tracker Data with Healthcare Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cocreating the Visualization of Digital Mobility Outcomes: Delphi-Type Process With Patients.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Attitudes of healthcare professionals and researchers toward wearable and app derived patient generated health data.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Stepping toward implementation using co-design: development of hospital protocols and resources for using wearable activity trackers in a hospital service.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Exploring clinicians' perspectives on falls, balance and gait assessments to inform wearable device development. "Adding to the bigger picture of the patient in falls assessments".Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Establishing a Consensus-Based Framework for the Use of Wearable Activity Trackers in Health Care: Delphi Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- Breaking down the Digital Fortress: The Unseen Challenges in Healthcare Technology-Lessons Learned from 10 Years of Research.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Wearable Activity Tracker Checklist for Healthcare (WATCH): a 12-point guide for the implementation of wearable activity trackers in healthcare.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024Article
- Mobilise-D insights to estimate real-world walking speed in multiple conditions with a wearable device.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cardiac interoception in the museum: A novel measure of experience.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Feasibility and usability of a digital health technology system to monitor mobility and assess medication adherence in mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Balance Impairments in People with Early-Stage Multiple Sclerosis: Boosting the Integration of Instrumented Assessment in Clinical Practice.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of wearable sensor technology to collect patient health data, such as gait and physical activity, offers the potential to transform healthcare research. To maximise the use of wearable devices in practice, it is important that they are usable by, and offer value to, all stakeholders. Although previous research has explored participants' opinions of devices, to date, limited studies have explored the experiences and opinions of the researchers who use and implement them. Researchers offer a unique insight into wearable devices as they may have access to multiple devices and cohorts, and thus gain a thorough understanding as to how and where this area needs to progress. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the experiences and opinions of researchers from academic, industry and clinical contexts, in the use of wearable devices to measure gait and physical activity.
methodsTwenty professionals with experience using wearable devices in research were recruited from academic, industry and clinical backgrounds. Independent, semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcribed texts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
resultsFive themes were identified: (1) The positives and negatives of using wearable devices in research, (2) The routine implementation of wearable devices into research and clinical practice, (3) The importance of compromise in protocols, (4) Securing good quality data, and (5) A paradigm shift. Researchers overwhelmingly supported the use of wearable sensor technology due to the insights that they may provide. Though barriers remain, researchers were pragmatic towards these, believing that there is a paradigm shift happening in this area of research that ultimately requires mistakes and significant volumes of further research to allow it to progress.
conclusionsMultiple barriers to the use of wearable devices in research and clinical practice remain, including data management and clear clinical utility. However, researchers strongly believe that the potential benefit of these devices to support and create new clinical insights for patient care, is greater than any current barrier. Multi-disciplinary research integrating the expertise of both academia, industry and clinicians is a fundamental necessity to further develop wearable devices and protocols that match the varied needs of all stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.