Next Article in Journal
An Automated System for Classification of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Pneumonia Patients Using Lung Sound Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Identifying Fatigue Indicators Using Gait Variability Measures: A Longitudinal Study on Elderly Brisk Walking
Previous Article in Journal
Sensitivity Analysis of Acoustic Emission Detection Using Fiber Bragg Gratings with Different Optical Fiber Diameters
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dual-Task Gait Stability after Concussion and Subsequent Injury: An Exploratory Investigation
Open AccessArticle

An Objective Methodology for the Selection of a Device for Continuous Mobility Assessment

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering & INSIGNEO Institute for in Silico Medicine, The University of Sheffield, Sir Frederick Mappin Building, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK
2
School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, 4 Dublin, Ireland
3
Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 5TG, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Membership of Mobilise-D consortium is provided in the Acknowledgements.
Sensors 2020, 20(22), 6509; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226509
Received: 6 October 2020 / Revised: 5 November 2020 / Accepted: 10 November 2020 / Published: 14 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wearable Sensors for Movement Analysis)
Continuous monitoring by wearable technology is ideal for quantifying mobility outcomes in “real-world” conditions. Concurrent factors such as validity, usability, and acceptability of such technology need to be accounted for when choosing a monitoring device. This study proposes a bespoke methodology focused on defining a decision matrix to allow for effective decision making. A weighting system based on responses (n = 69) from a purpose-built questionnaire circulated within the IMI Mobilise-D consortium and its external collaborators was established, accounting for respondents’ background and level of expertise in using wearables in clinical practice. Four domains (concurrent validity, CV; human factors, HF; wearability and usability, WU; and data capture process, CP), associated evaluation criteria, and scores were established through literature research and group discussions. While the CV was perceived as the most relevant domain (37%), the others were also considered highly relevant (WU: 30%, HF: 17%, CP: 16%). Respondents (~90%) preferred a hidden fixation and identified the lower back as an ideal sensor location for mobility outcomes. Overall, this study provides a novel, holistic, objective, as well as a standardized approach accounting for complementary aspects that should be considered by professionals and researchers when selecting a solution for continuous mobility monitoring. View Full-Text
Keywords: wearable technology; real-world assessment; continuous monitoring; healthcare challenges; inertial measurement units; digital mobility outcomes; mobility assessment wearable technology; real-world assessment; continuous monitoring; healthcare challenges; inertial measurement units; digital mobility outcomes; mobility assessment
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Bonci, T.; Keogh, A.; Del Din, S.; Scott, K.; Mazzà, C.; on behalf of the Mobilise-D consortium. An Objective Methodology for the Selection of a Device for Continuous Mobility Assessment. Sensors 2020, 20, 6509. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226509

AMA Style

Bonci T, Keogh A, Del Din S, Scott K, Mazzà C, on behalf of the Mobilise-D consortium. An Objective Methodology for the Selection of a Device for Continuous Mobility Assessment. Sensors. 2020; 20(22):6509. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226509

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bonci, Tecla; Keogh, Alison; Del Din, Silvia; Scott, Kirsty; Mazzà, Claudia; on behalf of the Mobilise-D consortium. 2020. "An Objective Methodology for the Selection of a Device for Continuous Mobility Assessment" Sensors 20, no. 22: 6509. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226509

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop