Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36756644›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study.

Alison Keogh, Lisa Alcock, Philip Brown, Ellen Buckley, Marina Brozgol, Eran Gazit, Clint Hansen, Kirsty Scott, Lars Schwickert, Clemens Becker and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  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

18 authors.

Alison KeoghInsight Centre for Data Analytics, O'Brien Science Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5917-6308
Lisa AlcockTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Philip BrownPhysiotherapy Department, The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Ellen BuckleyINSIGNEO Institute for in silico Medicine, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Marina BrozgolCenter for the Study of Movement, Cognition and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Eran GazitCenter for the Study of Movement, Cognition and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Clint HansenDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Kirsty ScottINSIGNEO Institute for in silico Medicine, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Lars SchwickertGesellschaft für Medizinische Forschung, Robert-Bosch Foundation GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany.
Clemens BeckerGesellschaft für Medizinische Forschung, Robert-Bosch Foundation GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany.
Jeffrey M HausdorffCenter for the Study of Movement, Cognition and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Walter MaetzlerDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Lynn RochesterTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Basil SharrackDepartment of Neuroscience and Sheffield NIHR Translational Neuroscience BRC, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Ioannis VogiatzisDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Alison YarnallTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Claudia MazzàINSIGNEO Institute for in silico Medicine, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Brian CaulfieldInsight Centre for Data Analytics, O'Brien Science Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to explore the acceptability of a wearable device for remotely measuring mobility in the Mobilise-D technical validation study (TVS), and to explore the acceptability of using digital tools to monitor health. Methods: Participants ( Results: The device was considered both comfortable (median CRS (IQR; min-max) = 0.0 (0.0; 0-20) on a scale from 0-20 where lower scores signify better comfort) and acceptable (5.0 (0.5; 3.0-5.0) on a scale from 1-5 where higher scores signify better acceptability). Interviews showed it was easy to use, did not interfere with daily activities, and was comfortable. The following themes emerged from participants' as being important to digital technology: altered expectations for themselves, the use of technology, trust, and communication with healthcare professionals. Conclusions: Digital tools may bridge existing communication gaps between patients and clinicians and participants are open to this. This work indicates that waist-worn devices are supported, but further work with patient advisors should be undertaken to understand some of the key issues highlighted. This will form part of the ongoing work of the Mobilise-D consortium.

Indexed as

acceptabilitydigital outcomesmixed methodsUsabilitywearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID36756644
PMCPMC9900162

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.