Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Publication
    Comparing the Usability and Acceptability of Wearable Sensors Among Older Irish Adults in a Real-World Context: Observational Study
    Background: Wearable devices are valuable assessment tools for patient outcomes in contexts such as clinical trials. To besuccessfully deployed, however, participants must be willing to wear them. Another concern is that usability studies are rarelypublished, often fail to test devices beyond 24 hours, and need to be repeated frequently to ensure that contemporary devices areassessed.Objective: This study aimed to compare multiple wearable sensors in a real-world context to establish their usability within anolder 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 interviewsand three questionnaires, namely, the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), the System Usability Scale (SUS), and an acceptabilityquestionnaire. 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 deviceswere perceived as useful, namely through the provision of feedback for the user. Participants agreed that the purpose of use is akey enabler for long-term compliance. These views were particularly noted by those not currently wearing an activity-trackingdevice. Participants believed that wrist-worn sensors were the most versatile and easy to use, and therefore, the most suitable forlong-term use. In particular, Actiwatch and Wavelet stood out for their comfort. The convergence of quantitative and qualitativedata was demonstrated in the study.Conclusions: Based on the results, the following context-specific recommendations can be made: (1) researchers should considertheir device selection in relation to both individual and environmental factors, and not simply the primary outcome of the researchstudy; (2) if researchers do not wish their participants to have access to feedback from the devices, then a simple, wrist-worndevice that acts as a watch is preferable; (3) if feedback is allowed, then it should be made available to help participants remainengaged; this is likely to apply only to people without cognitive impairments; (4) battery life of 1 week should be considered as a necessary featire to enhance data capture; (5) researchers should consider providing additional information about the purpose of devices to participants to support their continued use.
      259Scopus© Citations 30
  • Publication
    Feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating a theory-driven group-based complex intervention versus usual physiotherapy to support self-management of osteoarthritis and low back pain (SOLAS)
    Background: The self-management of osteoarthritis (OA) and low back pain (LBP) through activity and skills (SOLAS) theory-driven group-based complex intervention was developed primarily for the evaluation of its acceptability to patients and physiotherapists and the feasibility of trial procedures, to inform the potential for a definitive trial. Methods: This assessor-blinded multicentre two-arm parallel cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial compared the SOLAS intervention to usual individual physiotherapy (UP; pragmatic control group). Patients with OA of the hip, knee, lumbar spine and/or chronic LBP were recruited in primary care physiotherapy clinics (i.e. clusters) in Dublin, Ireland, between September 2014 and November 2015. The primary feasibility objectives were evaluated using quantitative methods and individual telephone interviews with purposive samples of participants and physiotherapists. A range of secondary outcomes were collected at baseline, 6 weeks (behaviour change only), 2 months and 6 months to explore the preliminary effects of the intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat according to participants' cluster allocation and involved descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews. A linear mixed model was used to contrast change over time in participant secondary outcomes between treatment arms, while adjusting for study waves and clusters. Results: Fourteen clusters were recruited (7 per trial arm), each cluster participated in two waves of recruitment, with the average cluster size below the target of six participants (intervention: mean (SD) = 4.92 (1.31), range 2-7; UP: mean (SD) = 5.08 (2.43), range 1-9). One hundred twenty participants (83.3% of n = 144 expected) were recruited (intervention n = 59; UP n = 61), with follow-up data obtained from 80.8% (n = 97) at 6 weeks, 84.2% (n = 101) at 2 months and 71.7% (n = 86) at 6 months. Most participants received treatment as allocated (intervention n = 49; UP n = 54). The qualitative interviews (12 participants; 10 physiotherapists (PTs) found the intervention and trial procedures acceptable and appropriate, with minimal feasible adaptations required. Linear mixed methods showed improvements in most secondary outcomes at 2 and 6 months with small between-group effects. Conclusions: While the SOLAS intervention and trial procedures were acceptable to participants and PTs, the recruitment of enough participants is the biggest obstacle to a definitive trial.
      19Scopus© Citations 3
  • Publication
    Devising a Pace-Based Definition for “The Wall”: An Observational Analysis of Marathoners' Subjective Experiences of Fatigue
    Context Many runners report “hitting The Wall” (HTW) during a marathon (42.2 km). However, the performance manifestation of this subjectively experienced phenomenon remains unclear. Objective To identify a pace-based classification for HTW by integrating subjective reports of fatigue and runners' pacing profiles during a marathon. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Public race event (2018 Dublin Marathon). Patients or Other Participants Eighty-three runners (28 [34%] women, 55 [66%] men, age = 41.5 ± 9.1 years, height = 1.73 ± 0.09 m, mass = 70.2 ± 10.1 kg). Main Outcome Measure(s) The pacing profiles for respondents to our postrace questionnaire that concerned the phenomenon of HTW were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed on discretized outcomes of the time series of marathoners' paces during the race. Results Using the receiver operating characteristic analyses, we observed that runners could be classified as having experienced HTW if they ran any 1-km segment 11% slower than the average of the remaining segments of the race (accuracy = 84.6%, sensitivity = 1, specificity = 0.6) or if the standard deviation of the normalized 1-km split times exceeded 0.0532 (accuracy = 83%, sensitivity = 0.818, specificity = 0.8). Similarly, runners could be classified as having experienced HTW if they ran any 5-km segment 7.3% slower than the average of the remaining 5-km segments of the race (accuracy = 84.6%, sensitivity = 1, specificity = 0.644) or if the standard deviation of the normalized 5-km split times exceeded 0.0346 (accuracy = 82%, sensitivity = 0.909, specificity = 0.622). Conclusions These pace-based criteria could be valuable to researchers evaluating HTW prevalence in cohorts for whom they lack subjective questionnaire data.
      127Scopus© Citations 4