Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34989693›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

The Views and Needs of People With Parkinson Disease Regarding Wearable Devices for Disease Monitoring: Mixed Methods Exploration.

Lorna Kenny, Kevin Moore, Clíona O' Riordan, Siobhan Fox, John Barton, Salvatore Tedesco, Marco Sica, Colum Crowe, Antti Alamäki, Joan Condell and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.8field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Lorna KennyCentre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5351-3091
Kevin MooreCentre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0712-2222
Clíona O' RiordanCentre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0509-3141
Siobhan FoxCentre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6854-8975
John BartonTyndall National Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0671-5678
Salvatore TedescoTyndall National Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7752-2240
Marco SicaTyndall National Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4188-4482
Colum CroweTyndall National Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7479-9922
Antti AlamäkiResearch, Development and Innovation Activities & Physiotherapy Education, Karelia University of Applied Sciences, Joensuu, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6293-6232
Joan CondellSchool of Computing, Engineering and Intelligent Systems, Faculty of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment, Ulster University, Magee, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3517-2182
Anna NordströmDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3534-456X
Suzanne TimmonsCentre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7790-9552
University College Cork · IEKarelia University of Applied Sciences · FIUmeå University · SEUniversity of Ulster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWearable devices can diagnose, monitor, and manage neurological disorders such as Parkinson disease. With a growing number of wearable devices, it is no longer a case of whether a wearable device can measure Parkinson disease motor symptoms, but rather which features suit the user. Concurrent with continued device development, it is important to generate insights on the nuanced needs of the user in the modern era of wearable device capabilities.

objectiveThis study aims to understand the views and needs of people with Parkinson disease regarding wearable devices for disease monitoring and management.

methodsThis study used a mixed method parallel design, wherein survey and focus groups were concurrently conducted with people living with Parkinson disease in Munster, Ireland. Surveys and focus group schedules were developed with input from people with Parkinson disease. The survey included questions about technology use, wearable device knowledge, and Likert items about potential device features and capabilities. The focus group participants were purposively sampled for variation in age (all were aged >50 years) and sex. The discussions concerned user priorities, perceived benefits of wearable devices, and preferred features. Simple descriptive statistics represented the survey data. The focus groups analyzed common themes using a qualitative thematic approach. The survey and focus group analyses occurred separately, and results were evaluated using a narrative approach.

resultsOverall, 32 surveys were completed by individuals with Parkinson disease. Four semistructured focus groups were held with 24 people with Parkinson disease. Overall, the participants were positive about wearable devices and their perceived benefits in the management of symptoms, especially those of motor dexterity. Wearable devices should demonstrate clinical usefulness and be user-friendly and comfortable. Participants tended to see wearable devices mainly in providing data for health care professionals rather than providing feedback for themselves, although this was also important. Barriers to use included poor hand function, average technology confidence, and potential costs. It was felt that wearable device design that considered the user would ensure better compliance and adoption.

conclusionsWearable devices that allow remote monitoring and assessment could improve health care access for patients living remotely or are unable to travel. COVID-19 has increased the use of remotely delivered health care; therefore, future integration of technology with health care will be crucial. Wearable device designers should be aware of the variability in Parkinson disease symptoms and the unique needs of users. Special consideration should be given to Parkinson disease-related health barriers and the users' confidence with technology. In this context, a user-centered design approach that includes people with Parkinson disease in the design of technology will likely be rewarded with improved user engagement and the adoption of and compliance with wearable devices, potentially leading to more accurate disease management, including self-management.

Indexed as

focus groupmixed methodmobile phoneParkinson diseasesurveytechnologywearable devices

Identifiers

PMID34989693
PMCPMC8778562
OpenAlexW3191531314

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.