Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Background: Consumer wearable technologies have become ubiquitous, with clinical and non-clinical populations leveraging a variety of devices to quantify various aspects of health and wellness. However, the accuracy with which these devices measure biometric outcomes such as heart rate, sleep and physical activity remains unclear. Objective: To conduct a ‘living’ (i.e. ongoing) evaluation of the accuracy of consumer wearable technologies in measuring various physiological outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO. The inclusion criteria required systematic reviews or meta-analyses that evaluated the validation of consumer wearable devices against accepted reference standards. In addition to publication details, review protocol, device specifics and a summary of the authors’ results, we extracted data on mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), pooled absolute bias, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean absolute differences. Results: Of 904 identified studies through the initial search, 24 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria; these systematic reviews included 249 non-duplicate validation studies of consumer wearable devices involving 430,465 participants (43% female). Of the commercially available wearable devices released to date, approximately 11% have been validated for at least one biometric outcome. However, because a typical device can measure a multitude of biometric outcomes, the number of validation studies conducted represents just 3.5% of the total needed for a comprehensive evaluation of these devices. For heart rate, wearables showed a mean bias of ± 3%. In arrhythmia detection, wearables exhibited a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 95%, respectively. For aerobic capacity, wearables significantly overestimated VO_2max by ± 15.24% during resting tests and ± 9.83% during exercise tests. Physical activity intensity measurements had a mean absolute error ranging from 29 to 80%, depending on the intensity of the activity being undertaken. Wearables mostly underestimated step counts (mean absolute percentage errors ranging from − 9 to 12%) and energy expenditure (mean bias = − 3 kcal per minute, or − 3%, with error ranging from − 21.27 to 14.76%). For blood oxygen saturation, wearables showed a mean absolute difference of up to 2.0%. Sleep measurement showed a tendency to overestimate total sleep time (mean absolute percentage error typically > 10%). Conclusions: While consumer wearables show promise in health monitoring, a conclusive assessment of their accuracy is impeded by pervasive heterogeneity in research outcomes and methodologies. There is a need for standardised validation protocols and collaborative industry partnerships to enhance the reliability and practical applicability of wearable technology assessments. Prospero ID: CRD42023402703.

The majority of wearable sensor-based biofeedback systems used in exercise rehabilitation lack end-user evaluation as part of the development process. This study sought to evaluate an exemplar sensor-based biofeedback system, investigating the feasibility, usability, perceived impact and user experience of using the platform. Fifteen patients participated in the study having recently undergone knee replacement surgery. Participants were provided with the system for two weeks at home, completing a semi-structured interview alongside the System Usability Scale (SUS) and user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS). The analysis from the SUS (mean = 90.8 [SD = 7.8]) suggests a high degree of usability, supported by qualitative findings. The mean adherence rate was 79% with participants reporting a largely positive user experience, suggesting it offers additional support with the rehabilitation regime. Overall quality from the mean uMARS score was 4.1 out of 5 (SD = 0.39), however a number of bugs and inaccuracies were highlighted along with suggestions for additional features to enhance engagement. This study has shown that patients perceive value in the use of wearable sensor-based biofeedback systems and has highlighted the benefit of user-evaluation during the design process, illustrated the need for real-world accuracy validation, and supports the ongoing development of such systems.

Objectives This study explores the opinions of orthopaedic healthcare professionals regarding the opportunities and challenges of using wearable technology in rehabilitation. It continues to assess the perceived impact of an exemplar exercise biofeedback system that incorporates wearable sensing, involving the clinician in the user-centred design process, a valuable step in ensuring ease of implementation, sustained engagement and clinical relevance. Design This is a qualitative study consisting of one-to-one semi-structured interviews, including a demonstration of a prototype wearable exercise biofeedback system. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, with thematic analysis conducted of all transcripts. Setting The study was conducted in the orthopaedic department of an acute private hospital. Participants Ten clinicians from a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals involved in the orthopaedic rehabilitation pathway participated in the study. Results Participants reported that there is currently a challenge in gathering timely and objective data for the monitoring of patients in orthopaedic rehabilitation. While there are challenges in ensuring reliability and engagement of biofeedback systems, clinicians perceive significant value in the use of wearable biofeedback systems such as the exemplar demonstrated for use following total knee replacement. Conclusions Clinicians see an opportunity for wearable technology to continuously track data in real-time, and feel that feedback provided to users regarding exercise technique and adherence can further support the patient at home, although there are clear design and implementation challenges relating to ensuring technical accuracy and tailoring rehabilitation to the individual. There was perceived value in the prototype system demonstrated to participants which supports the ongoing development of such exercise biofeedback platforms.

Background: The number of mobile health (mHealth) apps released for musculoskeletal (MSK) injury treatment and self-management with home exercise programs (HEPs) has risen rapidly in recent years as digital health interventions are explored and researched in more detail. As this number grows, it is becoming increasingly difficult for users to navigate the market and select the most appropriate app for their use case. It is also unclear what features the developers of these apps are harnessing to support patient self-management and how they fit into clinical care pathways. Objective: The objective of this study was to scope the current market of mHealth apps for MSK rehabilitation and to report on their features, claims, evidence base, and functionalities. Methods: A cross-sectional study of apps for MSK rehabilitation was performed across the iTunes App Store and Google Play Store. Four search terms were used, namely, physiotherapy rehabilitation, physical therapy rehabilitation, rehabilitation exercise, and therapeutic exercise to identify apps, which were then cross-referenced against set selection criteria by 4 reviewers. Each reviewer, where possible, downloaded the app and accessed supplementary literature available on the product to assist in data extraction. Results: A total of 1322 apps were identified. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and removing duplicates, 144 apps were included in the study. Over half (n=81, 56.3%) of the included apps had been released within the past 3 years. Three quarters (n=107, 74.3%) of the apps made no reference to evidence supporting the design or efficacy of the app, with only 11.1% (n=16) providing direct citations to research. Most of the apps did utilize exercise pictures (n=138, 95.8%) or videos (n=97, 67.4%); however, comparatively few harnessed additional features to encourage engagement and support self-management, such as an adherence log (n=66, 45.8%), communication portal (n=32, 22.2%), patient-reported outcome capture (n=36, 25%), or direct feedback (n=57, 39.6%). Of note and concern, many of these apps prescribed generic exercises (n=93, 64.6%) in the absence of individualized input to the user, with few providing specific patient education (n=43, 34%) and safety advice or disclaimers (n=38, 26.4%). Conclusions: The cohort of apps included in this study contained a large heterogeneity of features, so it is difficult for users to identify the most appropriate or effective app. Many apps are missing the opportunity to offer key features that could promote exercise adherence and encourage self-management in MSK rehabilitation. Furthermore, very few developers currently offering products on the market are providing evidence to support the design and efficacy of their technologies.