Skip to main content
Log in

Body-Worn Sensor Design: What Do Patients and Clinicians Want?

  • Published:
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

User preferences need to be taken into account in order to be able to design devices that will gain acceptance both in a clinical and home setting. Sensor systems become redundant if patients or clinicians do not want to work with them. The aim of this systematic review was to determine both patients’ and clinicians’ preferences for non-invasive body-worn sensor systems. A search for relevant articles and conference proceedings was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents Connect, and EEEI explore. In total 843 papers were identified of which only 11 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. A range of different clinically relevant user groups were included. The key user preferences were that a body-worn sensor system should be compact, embedded and simple to operate and maintain. It also should not affect daily behavior nor seek to directly replace a health care professional. It became apparent that despite the importance of user preferences, they are rarely considered and as such there is a lack of high-quality studies in this area. We therefore would like to encourage researchers to focus on the implications of user preferences when designing wearable sensor systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bonato, P. Wearable sensors and systems. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 29(3):25–36, 2010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brownsell, S. J., D. A. Bradley, R. Bragg, P. Catlin, and J. Carlier. Do community alarm users want telecare? J. Telemed. Telecare. 6(4):199–204, 2000.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Carter, J., and M. Rosen. Unobtrusive sensing of activities of daily living: a preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the First Joint BMES/EMBS Conference, Oct 13–16, 1999. IEEE Press, 1999, p. 678.

  4. Chae, H., W. Cho, S. Kim, and K. Han. Usability studies on sensor smart clothing. In: Human-Computer Interaction Ambient, Ubiquitous and Intelligent Interaction, edited by J. Jacko. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp. 725–730.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunne, L. E., S. Brady, B. Smyth, and D. Diamond. Initial development and testing of a novel foam-based pressure sensor for wearable sensing. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2(1):4, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Durfee, W., J. Carey, D. Nuckley, and J. Deng. Design and implementation of a home stroke telerehabilitation system. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2009:2422–2425, 2009.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fensli, R., and E. Boisen. Human factors affecting the patient’s acceptance of wireless biomedical sensors. In: Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, edited by A. Fred, J. Filipe, and H. Gamboa. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp. 402–412.

  8. Fensli, R., J. Dale, P. O’Reilly, J. O’Donoghue, D. Sammon, and T. Gundersen. Towards improved healthcare performance: examining technological possibilities and patient satisfaction with wireless body area networks. J. Med. Syst. 34(4):767–775, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fensli, R., P. E. Pedersen, T. Gundersen, and O. Hejlesen. Sensor acceptance model—measuring patient acceptance of wearable sensors. Methods Inf. Med. 47(1):89–95, 2008.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fraile, J., J. Bajo, J. Corchado, and A. Abraham. Applying wearable solutions in dependent environments. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 14(6):1459–1467, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gamarnik, V., P. Shu, J. Malke, C. Chiu, K. Ben, J. Montes, et al. An integrated motion capture system for evaluation of neuromuscular disease patients. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2009:218–221, 2009.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gemperle, F., C. Kasabach, J. Stivoric, M. Bauer, and R. Martin. Design for wearability. In: Digest of Papers Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers, 1998, pp. 116–122.

  13. Giansanti, D., S. Morelli, G. Maccioni, and G. Costantini. Toward the design of a wearable system for fall-risk detection in telerehabilitation. Telemed. J. E. Health 15(3):296–299, 2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Giansanti, D., Y. Tiberi, G. Silvestri, and G. Maccioni. Toward the integration of novel wearable step-counters in gait telerehabilitation after stroke. Telemed. J. E. Health 15(1):105–111, 2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haggard, P., and D. M. Wolpert. Disorders of body schema. In: Higher-order Motor Disorders: From Neuroanatomy and Neurobiology to Clinical Neurology, edited by H.-J. Freund. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 261–272.

  16. Hong, X., C. Nugent, W. Liu, J. Ma, S. McClean, B. Scotney, et al. Uncertain information management for ADL monitoring in smart homes. In: Intelligent Patient Management, edited by S. McClean, P. Millard, E. El-Darzi, and C. Nugent. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp. 315–332.

  17. Kumar, S., K. Kambhatla, F. Hu, M. Lifson, and Y. Xiao. Ubiquitous computing for remote cardiac patient monitoring: a survey. Int. J. Telemed. Appl. 2008:459185, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kuper, A., L. Lingard, and W. Levinson. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 337:a1035, 2008.

  19. Lukowicz, P., T. Kirstein, and G. Troster. Wearable systems for health care applications. Methods Inf. Med. 43(3):232–238, 2004.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Maluf-Filho, F. The importance of evidence-based medicine concepts for the clinical practitioner. Arq. Gastroenterol. 46(2):87–89, 2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mihailidis, A., A. Cockburn, C. Longley, and J. Boger. The acceptability of home monitoring technology among community-dwelling older adults and baby boomers. Assist. Technol. 20(1):1–12, 2008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mountain, G., S. Wilson, C. Eccleston, S. Mawson, J. Hammerton, T. Ware, et al. Developing and testing a telerehabilitation system for people following stroke: issues of usability. J. Eng. Des. 21(2):223–236, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Noury, N., A. Galay, J. Pasquier, and M. Ballussaud. Preliminary investigation into the use of Autonomous Fall Detectors. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2008:2828–2831, 2008.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pantelopoulos, A., and N. G. Bourbakis. A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring and prognosis. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. C Appl. Rev. 40(1):1–12, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Perry, M. A., P. A. Hendrick, L. Hale, G. D. Baxter, S. Milosavljevic, S. G. Dean, et al. Utility of the RT3 triaxial accelerometer in free living: an investigation of adherence and data loss. Appl. Ergon. 41(3):469–476, 2010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Prochazka, A., M. Gauthier, M. Wieler, and Z. Kenwell. The bionic glove: an electrical stimulator garment that provides controlled grasp and hand opening in quadriplegia. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 78(6):608–614, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rowlands, A. V. Accelerometer assessment of physical activity in children: an update. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 19(3):252–266, 2007.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sawyer, C. Do it by design: an introduction to human factors in medical devices. FDA, 1997. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm094957.htm.

  29. Schleyer, T. K. L., T. P. Thyvalikakath, and J. Hong. What is user-centered design? J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 138(8):1081–1082, 2007.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Steele, R., A. Lo, C. Secombe, and Y. K. Wong. Elderly persons’ perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare. Int. J. Med. Inf. 78(12):788–801, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Timmermans, A. A. A., H. A. M. Seelen, R. P. J. Geers, P. K. Saini, S. Winter, J. te Vrugt, et al. Sensor-based arm skill training in chronic stroke patients: results on treatment outcome, patient motivation, and system usability. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 18(3):284–292, 2010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. van Coevering, P., L. Harnack, K. Schmitz, J. Fulton, D. A. Galuska, and S. Gao. Feasibility of using accelerometers to measure physical activity in young adolescents. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 37(5):867–871, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Veltink, P. H., H. B. Bussmann, W. de Vries, W. L. Martens, and R. C. Van Lummel. Detection of static and dynamic activities using uniaxial accelerometers. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 4(4):375–385, 1996.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Wilson, S., R. Davies, T. Stone, J. Hammerton, P. Ware, S. Mawson, N. Harris, C. Eccleston, H. Zheng, N. Black, and G. Mountain. Developing a telemonitoring system for stroke rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of Ergonomics Society Annual Conference, 2007.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the authors who provided the manuscripts we could not obtain through our network. This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust and the EPSRC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. H. M. Bergmann.

Additional information

Associate Editor Scott I Simon oversaw the review of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bergmann, J.H.M., McGregor, A.H. Body-Worn Sensor Design: What Do Patients and Clinicians Want?. Ann Biomed Eng 39, 2299–2312 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-011-0339-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-011-0339-9

Keywords

Navigation