Patients self-mastery of wearable devices for seizure detection: A direct user-experience

Abstract

wearable devices aimed at detecting seizures are rapidly emerging. Continuous collection and optimal data quality are paramount to guarantee the acquisition of clinically meaningful data. It is still unknown how successfully patients can self-manage new technologies and which factors have an impact on this. We assessed the performance of patients managing a wrist-worn device. Method: patients wearing a wrist-worn device received a single training session to perform 5 tasks: (1) fitting the device correctly; (2) switching the device on and off; (3) charging the device on a daily basis; (4) pairing the device with a phone or tablet; (5) seeking assistance. Participants were then reviewed every 24 h and, at the end of the study, a Wearable technology Self-management Score (WSS) was calculated according to their performance in the different tasks (0-12). The association between WSS, seizure capture, demographics and clinical characteristics was analysed. Results: Thirty patients were included. The mean WSS score was 9.4 ± 2.1 points. The task more often performed inaccurately was pairing the device with a phone or tablet, followed by performing charging procedures. A strong association was found between WSS and seizure capture (p = 0.019), with higher scores strongly associated with more seizures captured. A WSS of ≥9 was the minimum value of WSS that allowed the device to record all the seizures. Number of AEDs and illness-perception related factors (perceived disease timeline and personal control) were significantly associated with WSS. Conclusions: Overall, participants demonstrated good performances in self-managing a wrist-worn device. Digital inequalities may extend to variations in how different individuals feel about their own disease and, consequently, manage the technology. These aspects should be addressed when technological solutions are delivered to users.

Seizure detection devices: Exploring caregivers’ needs and wishes

“…Semi-structured interviews of people with epilepsy following a short trial with wearables in the hospital revealed preferences for wireless, small size, comfortable devices that can be used without support [10]. Another quantitative study focusing on self-managing a wrist worn device identified differences in coping with new technologies among participants [20]. These digital inequalities are strongly related to illness-perception-related factors (e.g., perceived disease timeline and personal control) and should be considered during implementation [20].…”

“…Another quantitative study focusing on self-managing a wrist worn device identified differences in coping with new technologies among participants [20]. These digital inequalities are strongly related to illness-perception-related factors (e.g., perceived disease timeline and personal control) and should be considered during implementation [20].…”

Communication Requirements in 5G-Enabled Healthcare Applications: Review and Considerations

“…For assisting the physically impaired, there are numerous wearable devices to help improve quality of life, such as hearing aids (ear-to-ear communication) [ 117 , 118 ]; devices for disability assistance, e.g., muscle tension monitor [ 119 ]; muscle tension stimulation [ 120 ]; wearable assistive devices for the blind [ 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 ]; devices for speech impairment [ 125 , 126 ]; artificial/wearable limbs [ 127 , 128 , 129 ]; and exoskeleton suits [ 130 ]. Other examples that can be used by the elderly, or by Alzheimer’s or epilepsy patients, include wearables for fall detection [ 131 , 132 , 133 ] and seizure detection [ 134 , 135 ], and gyroscopes [ 136 ] and accelerometers [ 137 ] for localization monitoring. Examples of implantable devices include pacemakers [ 138 ] and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) [ 139 ], and implanted actuator [ 140 , 141 ].…”

The Challenging Path to Developing a Mobile Health Device for Epilepsy: The Current Landscape and Where We Go From Here

“…Nonetheless, interest in continuous real-time monitoring and alarms has increased, especially in patients with a high seizure frequency and concomitant risk of SUDEP (20), where high rates of daily false alarms would become unbearable for those most affected. Nonetheless, it was shown that a system could possibly permit users to tune their sensitivity and false positive rates (122), allowing to adjust for the patients' individual preferences of control, which might be quite different (123).…”

“…Furthermore, rapidly adapting to the device when prompted, such as charging or even changing the battery, could create obstacles for efficient use. Recently, a study examining a wrist-worn device demonstrated that only 50% of patients were able to fully and independently control it, whilst others needed both appropriate support and training, and a subgroup of patients (13.3%) required constant supervision (123). In several devices, users have identified constraints early on.…”