Evaluation Of Wearable Devices Research Articles

안마 및 발열기능의 스마트 조끼 개발과 성능 및 만족도 평가

안마 및 발열기능의 스마트 조끼 개발과 성능 및 만족도 평가

Usability Study of Mainstream Wearable Fitness Devices: Feature Analysis and System Usability Scale Evaluation

BackgroundWearable devices have the potential to promote a healthy lifestyle because of their real-time data monitoring capabilities. However, device usability is a critical factor that determines whether they will be adopted on a large scale. Usability studies on wearable devices are still scarce.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the functions and attributes of seven mainstream wearable devices and to evaluate their usability.MethodsThe wearable devices selected were the Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S, Fitbit Surge, Jawbone Up3, Mi Band, Huawei Honor B2, and Misfit Shine. A mixed method of feature comparison and a System Usability Scale (SUS) evaluation based on 388 participants was applied; the higher the SUS score, the better the usability of the product.ResultsFor features, all devices had step counting, an activity timer, and distance recording functions. The Samsung Gear S had a unique sports track recording feature and the Huawei Honor B2 had a unique wireless earphone. The Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S, Jawbone Up3, and Fitbit Surge could measure heart rate. All the devices were able to monitor sleep, except the Apple Watch. For product characteristics, including attributes such as weight, battery life, price, and 22 functions such as step counting, activity time, activity type identification, sleep monitoring, and expandable new features, we found a very weak negative correlation between the SUS scores and price (r=−.10, P=.03) and devices that support expandable new features (r=−.11, P=.02), and a very weak positive correlation between the SUS scores and devices that support the activity type identification function (r=.11, P=.02). The Huawei Honor B2 received the highest score of mean 67.6 (SD 16.1); the lowest Apple Watch score was only 61.4 (SD 14.7). No significant difference was observed among brands. The SUS score had a moderate positive correlation with the user’s experience (length of time the device was used) (r=.32, P<.001); participants in the medical and health care industries gave a significantly higher score (mean 61.1, SD 17.9 vs mean 68.7, SD 14.5, P=.03).ConclusionsThe functions of wearable devices tend to be homogeneous and usability is similar across various brands. Overall, Mi Band had the lowest price and the lightest weight. Misfit Shine had the longest battery life and most functions, and participants in the medical and health care industries had the best evaluation of wearable devices. The perceived usability of mainstream wearable devices is unsatisfactory and customer loyalty is not high. A consumer’s SUS rating for a wearable device is related to their personal situation instead of the device brand. Device manufacturers should put more effort into developing innovative functions and improving the usability of their products by integrating more cognitive behavior change techniques.

Selection of and Evidentiary Considerations for Wearable Devices and Their Measurements for Use in Regulatory Decision Making: Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium

BackgroundWearable devices offer huge potential to collect rich sources of data to provide insights into the effects of treatment interventions. Despite this, at the time of writing this report, limited regulatory guidance on the use of wearables in clinical trial programs has been published. ObjectivesTo present recommendations from the Critical Path Institute’s Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium regarding the selection and evaluation of wearable devices and their measurements for use in regulatory trials and to support labeling claims. MethodsThe evaluation group was composed of Critical Path Institute’s clinical outcome assessment (COA) scientists and COA specialists from pharmaceutical trial eCOA solution providers, including COA development and validation specialists. The resulting recommendations were drawn from a broad range of backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise that enriched the development of this report. Recommendations were developed through analysis of existing regulatory guidance relating to COA development and use in clinical trials, medical device certification/clearance regulations, literature-reported best practice, and practical experience of wearable technology application in clinical trials. ResultsWe identify the essential properties of fit-for-purpose wearables and propose evidence needed to support their use. In addition, we overview the activities required to establish clinical endpoints derived from wearables data. ConclusionsUsing this framework, we believe there is enough current understanding to promote the appropriate use of wearables in study protocols. We hope this will provide a basis for discussion among clinical trial stakeholders and catalyze the development of more robust regulatory guidance.