Comparing the Usability and Acceptability of Wearable Sensors Among Older Irish Adults in a Real-World Context: Observational Study

Abstract

Background Wearable devices are valuable assessment tools for patient outcomes in contexts such as clinical trials. To be successfully deployed, however, participants must be willing to wear them. Another concern is that usability studies are rarely published, often fail to test devices beyond 24 hours, and need to be repeated frequently to ensure that contemporary devices are assessed. Objective This study aimed to compare multiple wearable sensors in a real-world context to establish their usability within an older adult (>50 years) population. Methods Eight older adults wore seven devices for a minimum of 1 week each: Actigraph GT9x, Actibelt, Actiwatch, Biovotion, Hexoskin, Mc10 Biostamp_RC, and Wavelet. Usability was established through mixed methods using semistructured interviews and three questionnaires, namely, the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), the System Usability Scale (SUS), and an acceptability questionnaire. Quantitative data were reported descriptively and qualitative data were analyzed using deductive content analysis. Data were then integrated using triangulation. Results Results demonstrated that no device was considered optimal as all scored below average in the SUS (median, IQR; min-max=57.5, 12.5; 47.5-63.8). Hexoskin was the lowest scored device based on the IMI (3.6; 3.4-4.5), while Biovotion, Actibelt, and Mc10 Biostamp_RC achieved the highest median results on the acceptability questionnaire (3.6 on a 6-point Likert scale). Qualitatively, participants were willing to accept less comfort, less device discretion, and high charging burdens if the devices were perceived as useful, namely through the provision of feedback for the user. Participants agreed that the purpose of use is a key enabler for long-term compliance. These views were particularly noted by those not currently wearing an activity-tracking device. Participants believed that wrist-worn sensors were the most versatile and easy to use, and therefore, the most suitable for long-term use. In particular, Actiwatch and Wavelet stood out for their comfort. The convergence of quantitative and qualitative data was demonstrated in the study. Conclusions Based on the results, the following context-specific recommendations can be made: (1) researchers should consider their device selection in relation to both individual and environmental factors, and not simply the primary outcome of the research study; (2) if researchers do not wish their participants to have access to feedback from the devices, then a simple, wrist-worn device that acts as a watch is preferable; (3) if feedback is allowed, then it should be made available to help participants remain engaged; this is likely to apply only to people without cognitive impairments; (4) battery life of 1 week should be considered as a necessary feature to enhance data capture; (5) researchers should consider providing additional information about the purpose of devices to participants to support their continued use.

An Objective Methodology for the Selection of a Device for Continuous Mobility Assessment

“…Although this method was implemented using professionals/researchers, a similar approach could also be used to evaluate user perspectives. This approach’s novelty allows researchers to assess the relevance of domains that were previously quantified only in isolation [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 ], such as the wearability and usability of a device, in combination with aspects related to its validity and other domains. This ensures a more robust choice of a specific solution.…”

“…Widespread deployment of wearables requires “perceived usefulness” by the stakeholders, and benefits of use to be balanced with “perceived ease of use” [ 43 ]. Comfort, battery life, and feedback provided by the device are additional elements to be considered within this domain [ 35 , 36 ], as well as its size, location, and method of attachment to the body [ 39 , 44 , 45 ].…”

“…However, these aspects have not been widely investigated. Usability of different wearable devices has been assessed in older adults [ 36 , 37 ], patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [ 38 , 39 ], adults with chronic diseases [ 40 ], and on target populations interested in wearable solutions (e.g., novel vs. experienced users [ 34 ]). The data capture process, and the amount of interaction expected from the participant, might also be a limiting factor in adopting wearable devices.…”

MXene-based Sensors for Detecting Human Physiological Information

“…(56) Keogh et al pointed out that a short battery life has impeded the development of wearable healthcare devices. (66) Puri's group also found that most elderly people would prefer wearable healthcare devices to have a longer battery life. (64) In addition to the above functional requirements, many studies demonstrated the high demand for aesthetic factors, such as colors, shapes, and sizes.…”

“It’s Not as Simple as Just Looking at One Chart”: A Qualitative Study Exploring Clinician’s Opinions on Various Visualisation Strategies to Represent Longitudinal Actigraphy Data

“…In other words, it provides an understanding of how much people move or sleep, but not how this is dispersed within days, weeks or months. Recent research suggests that more complex methods of data processing may provide more meaningful clinical insights [11], while users may value further detail than that which is currently provided by many devices [12]. More granular visual representations of data may offer the ability to quickly identify patterns and understand behaviour, therefore informing clinical decision-making and driving increased use of wearables in practice [10, 13].…”