Back

Self-reported acceptance of a wearable activity monitor in persons with stroke

Nam, J.; Bellinger, G. C.; Li, J.; French, M. A.; Roemmich, R. T.

2024-12-16 health informatics
10.1101/2024.12.14.24318939
Show abstract

BackgroundWearable activity monitors offer clinicians and researchers accessible, scalable, and cost-effective tools for continuous remote monitoring of functional status. These technologies can complement traditional clinical outcome measures by providing detailed, minute-by-minute remotely collected data on a wide array of biometrics that include, as examples, physical activity and heart rate. There is significant potential for the use of these devices in rehabilitation after stroke if individuals will wear and use the devices; however, the acceptance of these devices by persons with stroke is not well understood. ObjectiveIn this study, we investigated the participant-reported acceptance of a commercially available, wrist-worn wearable activity monitor (the Fitbit Inspire 2) for remote monitoring of physical activity and heart rate in persons with stroke. We also assessed relationships between reported acceptance and adherence to wearing the device. MethodsSixty-five participants with stroke wore a Fitbit Inspire 2 for three months, at which point we assessed the acceptance of wearing the device using the Technology Acceptance Questionnaire (TAQ) inclusive of its seven dimensions (Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), Equipment Characteristics (EC), Privacy Concern (PC), Perceived Risk (PR), Facilitating Conditions (FC), and Subjective Norm (SN). We then performed Spearmans correlations to assess relationships between acceptance and adherence to device wear, which we calculated as both the percentage of daily wear time and percentage of valid days the device was worn during the three weeks preceding TAQ administration. ResultsMost participants reported generally agreeable responses with high overall total TAQ scores across all seven dimensions that indicated strong acceptance of the device; "Agree" was the median response to 29 of the 31 TAQ statements. Participants generally found the device beneficial for their health, efficient for monitoring, easy to use and don/doff, and unintrusive to daily life. However, participant responses on the TAQ did not show significant positive correlations with measures of actual device wear time (all p>0.05). ConclusionsThis study demonstrates generally high self-reported acceptance of the Fitbit Inspire 2 among persons with stroke. Participants reported general agreement across all seven TAQ dimensions with minimal concerns interpreted as being directly relatable to post-stroke motor impairment (e.g., donning and doffing devices, using the device independently). However, the high self-reported acceptance scores did not correlate positively with measures of real-world device wear. Accordingly, it should not be assumed that persons with stroke will adhere to wearing these devices simply because they report high acceptability.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 40%
12.6%
2
JMIR Formative Research
based on 31 papers
Top 0.2%
10.1%
3
DIGITAL HEALTH
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
7.5%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 3%
5.3%
5
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 5%
4.5%
6
Frontiers in Digital Health
based on 18 papers
Top 0.4%
4.5%
7
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
2.9%
8
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 5%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
9
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
based on 11 papers
Top 1.0%
2.8%
10
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 4%
2.8%
11
Age and Ageing
based on 27 papers
Top 1.0%
2.4%
12
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 4%
2.4%
13
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 37%
2.3%
14
Frontiers in Neurology
based on 74 papers
Top 7%
2.2%
15
JAMIA Open
based on 35 papers
Top 4%
1.6%
16
Sensors
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
17
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
based on 45 papers
Top 6%
1.6%
18
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
19
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
based on 13 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
20
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
21
JMIR Medical Informatics
based on 16 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
22
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
23
BMJ
based on 49 papers
Top 5%
1.2%
24
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 80%
1.2%
25
Preventive Medicine Reports
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
1.2%
26
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
27
Journal of General Internal Medicine
based on 19 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
28
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 11%
0.8%
29
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
based on 29 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
30
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
0.7%