Next Article in Journal
Screen-Printed Sensor Based on Potentiometric Transduction for Free Bilirubin Detection as a Biomarker for Hyperbilirubinemia Diagnosis
Previous Article in Journal
Interaction of Several Toxic Heterocarbonyl Gases with Polypyrrole as a Potential Gas Sensor
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Chemosensors
Volume 8
Issue 3
10.3390/chemosensors8030085
chemosensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

General Conceptual Framework of Future Wearables in Healthcare: Unified, Unique, Ubiquitous, and Unobtrusive (U4) for Customized Quantified Output

by
Mostafa Haghi
* and
Thomas M. Deserno
Peter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, Braunschweig, 38106 Lower Saxony, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Chemosensors 2020, 8(3), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors8030085
Submission received: 24 July 2020 / Revised: 4 September 2020 / Accepted: 8 September 2020 / Published: 15 September 2020
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We concentrate on the importance and future conceptual development of wearable devices as the major means of personalized healthcare. We discuss and address the role of wearables in the new era of healthcare in proactive medicine. This work addresses the behavioral, environmental, physiological, and psychological parameters as the most effective domains in personalized healthcare, and the wearables are categorized according to the range of measurements. The importance of multi-parameter, multi-domain monitoring and the respective interactions are further discussed and the generation of wearables based on the number of monitoring area(s) is consequently formulated.

1. Highlights and Key Messages

The key messages from this study are:
  • Wearables need to simultaneously monitor environmental, behavioral, physiological, and psychological parameters;
  • Wearable design, features, and functionalities should bridge users, healthcare professionals, and caregivers;
  • Wearables should deliver customized quantified output by linking a customized user profile and (library-based) disease specifications;
  • Unified, unique, ubiquitous, and unobtrusive (U4) are proposed as the criteria for the future generation of wearables;
  • Wearables should address the concerns of users and healthcare professionals (physicians) according to cost-effective, convenient, continuous, and complete (C4) and anywhere, anything, anytime, and anyone (A4), respectively.

2. Definition of Wearables, Applications, and Our Contributions

Wearable technology is an emerging trend that integrates electronics into daily life and tracks a wide range of activities and elements that fit into a person’s lifestyle [1]. Current breakthroughs in semiconductors, communication protocols, and sensors technologies have propelled the wearable market, which was valued at USD $27.91 billion in 2019 and is forecast to increase to USD $74.03 billion by 2025 [2]. Wearable devices can be worn on any part of the body (e.g., wrist, arm, head, neck, foot, or waist) enabling data exchange. They have been applied in various fields from safety [3], navigation [4], fitness [5], and sport [6] to healthcare [7], entertainment [8], and industry [9], and they have been introduced as important players in the Internet of Things (IoT) era [10]. With the application of wearable technology, the future might be quicker, healthier, safer, and more entertaining. Overall, the healthcare sector might be where wearables have the greatest potential [11]. Healthcare experts think that a combination of medical systems, technologies, and software development supported by consistent data exchange (known as interoperability) and analysis are the key points to the transition from intermittent patient monitoring to real-time continuous monitoring. Recently, several factors, such as decreasing the price, shrinking sensor size, and providing easy access to open-source application programming interfaces (APIs), frameworks, and libraries, have enhanced the potential of the wearables in becoming the method used for monitoring people’s health. However, wearability, convenience, accuracy, reliability, interpolation, interpretation, and resolution pose serious barriers [12]. The application of wearable technology is determined by the target design. Some families of wearables have been designed for monitoring, prediction, and prevention of the user [13]. Some target the management of users and diseases [14], and others facilitates and influences decision-making [15]. The efficiency of wearables was investigated in some studies for short clinical trials, and the promising results indicated the contributions of wearables to the quality of monitoring and the services provided by medical centers with supporting informative health status data and efficient end-to-end communication [14]. In this work, we concentrated on the first group of target wearables; thus, we addressed three aspects of their importance and usage in healthcare:
  • Healthcare systems are upgraded from reactive to proactive
    People who feel pain or something abnormal will go to see a doctor. This is the usual method for most people experiencing potential health risks, which is known as reactive. Using wearables motivates the user and supports a potential proactive approach to healthcare by long-term monitoring and detecting emergencies [16]. The proactive approach might be beneficial because health issues can be detected at an early stage before developing into a more serious issue that could have negative health consequences. In particular, using wearables is highly recommended to vulnerable patients with specific weaknesses [17].
  • Users are informed, engaged, and motivated
    Measurement, collection, and real-time data observation are currently supported by several wearables. Wearables can detect the abnormalities and inform the user by tracking the daily values, thresholds, boundaries, and variations in intended parameters in real time. This is why some of the insurance companies have already encouraged the use of wearables [18]. The data and the created pattern and figures can indicate the user’s lifestyle and motivate them to change and improve, if necessary, to enhance the general quality of health/life [5].
  • Healthcare providers are benefited
    The healthcare system includes another party in addition to patients: physicians and professional caregivers also might benefit from big data collection and prolonged monitoring to obtain a more accurate diagnosis and to help with decision-making. Using wearables may also reduce the cost that is imposed on medical systems [19]. Statistics show that 20% of all healthcare costs result from a lack of sufficient physical activity and exercise, sleep disorders, and addiction to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco [20].
Given the points stated above, both users and physicians, as well as all parties included in the healthcare system, benefit from wider application of wearables [21,22,23,24]. In addition, caregivers can be engaged in the system for providing assistance in case of emergencies that are detected by the wearable. To achieve this, the demands and requirements of the involved parties (users and physicians) must be strictly considered and fulfilled.
To address the issues and the current aim, the World Health Organization (WHO), as the worldwide healthcare reference, has identified the following four effective areas that need to be monitored to protect human health: environmental, behavioral (physical activities), physiological, and psychological [25]. We briefly mention the most important parameters of these areas, but the list can be further extended. In the behavioral area, various physical activities, including mobility, step counting, user walking speed, etc., are important [26]. The physiological area may consist of vital signs as well as skin conductance [27]. Toxic and hazardous gas pollutants, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, sound level, air pressure, temperature, and humidity are the effective parameters in the environmental area [28]. Finally, stress and strain can be the most valuable parameters in the psychological aspect [29]. These four areas are interwoven because each parameter in a domain might be influenced by the parameter(s) in the other domains; thus, extensive data measurement, collection, fusion, and integration are necessary to calculate the mutual impact among different parameters and to assign a weight to each. This means that adequate decision-making and identification of a medical diagnosis are the functions of proper algorithm development, which require effective data, collection, fusion, and integration, which are impacted by continuous monitoring [30].
However, the recommendation to use wearable(s) is based on conditions that satisfy several criteria. To date, the majority of available wearables have been designed using a familiar structure that measures specific parameters for some predefined diseases without considering the user’s profile (i.e., personalized medicine) [31,32]. In addition to the lack of comprehensive monitoring, wearability, prolonged monitoring, and cost of wearables are the other barriers to advances in wearables applications [33]. Such devices are delivering some raw data. However, analysis and decision-making is considering historical medical records.

3. Generation of Wearables: Current Status

To discuss the current status of wearables, we considered and categorized wearables from the perspective of monitoring in healthcare. These include behavioral, physiological, environmental, and psychological domains. As each domain may include several parameters, the criterion is the domain rather than the parameter. We identify each domain by clustering the parameters, highlighting the borders, and labeling the current wearables with a generation. We define G n , where G is the generation and n is the number of monitoring domains for each wearable.
Thus, wearables labeled G 1 only measure one domain of the four domains discussed above. This domain could be either behavioral, environmental, physiological, or psychological, but not two of them simultaneously. Each generation might have several versions, considering the features, characteristics, and optimization. As examples, in this definition, wearables that measure either three-dimensional (3D) motion tracking (physical activity) via inertial measurement units (IMUs) [34], air pollutants (environmental) [35], vital signs (physiological) [36], and emotion and stress (psychological) are widely used and represent the first generation of wearables ( G 1 ) [37]. However, version of the generation varies from one wearable to another depending on the wearability, computation methodology, and processing, which is not the focus here.
The integration of micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) into IMUs has enabled miniaturization along with high performance and low power consumption for precise and high-resolution physical activity measurement. This miniaturization has enabled the sensor fusion of IMUs in each of the other domains, which advanced the wearables from single-domain monitoring to double-domain monitoring ( G 2 ) [38].
Due to miniaturization of IMUs, the behavioral domain is a consistent aspect of third-generation wearables. IMUs are often integrated with any of the two other domains. Behavioral, physiological, and psychological parameters are often user/patient-controlled and are considered the interactive internal parameters that cause mutual impact and parameter interactions. As the third generation of wearables is restricted to monitoring only three domains, in the majority of the cases, the behavioral, physiological, and psychological domains are combined. However, any combination of behavioral, physiological, psychological, and environmental domains consisting of only three domains is known as G 3 [39].
The environmental parameters are considered to be externally-imposed influential factors that affect the other three domains but basically are not influenced by the other domains. Therefore, due to the interaction of the environmental with the others domains, the simultaneous investigation of impact of environmental, behavioral, physiological, and psychological domains on the human health appears to be necessary.
The WHO refers to environmental pollutants as causing a noticeable mortality rate [40]. Many respiratory diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)) have a higher incidence because of exposure to air pollutants [41,42]. Additionally, air pollutants increase stress, strain, and the risk of heart failure in particularly vulnerable patients [43,44,45]. However, given the variability of sensors for measuring environmental factors (high power consumption, frequent calibration, and large scale), they are mostly ignored [20,46,47].
By now, comprehensive healthcare monitoring necessitates simultaneous measurement of all four domains. Consequently, acquiring reliable and precise physiological and psychological signals without considering the environmental domain is impossible.
In summary, rethinking and redesigning the development of wearables is a fundamental need for improving their performance and creating accurate diagnosis. Here, we categorize the wearables according to the domain and their combinations, demonstrating the future direction of wearables and propose taking a new route to advance wearable methodologies, approaches, and technologies into an ideal future generation. However, comprehensive monitoring is not the only concern, although the major one. Convenience and prolonged monitoring, plus reliability and cost-effectiveness, are the serious concerns in the field that need to be considered.

4. Future Generation of Wearable Systems ( G 4 ): Challenges and Opportunities

During technological evolution, demand is the influencing factor that creates requirements and propels science forward. In personalized healthcare, demands are created by physicians and users. Therefore, the triangle of demands, requirements, and technologies are closed with simultaneous consideration of both groups (physicians and users).
A wearable has merit in healthcare when it satisfies the requirements of physicians and users. Designing a successful wearable is the function of user–physician compromise. Under such conditions, the medical and technical demands are complemented by the expectation of users to encourage wearing and to establish active communication with healthcare providers. Conceptually, user demands can be different from those of healthcare providers [48].
A user will wear a device when it will not interfere with her/his daily routine (convenience and continuous) [49] and delivers significant information that is interpreted by the user as an indicator of her/his general health status (complete). Additionally, from an economic perspective, the wearable must be affordable and worth purchasing (cost-effective) [50]. Thus, we introduce C4 as the criteria for a qualified wearable to represent the users’ demands, which include: cost-effective, convenient, continuous, and complete [7].
However, looking at the future generation of wearables from a physician viewpoint, demands are increasing, consisting of reliability and accuracy of measurements, critical setup parameters and mutual interaction, efficient data analysis, and investigation. Physicians expect an interactive device to measure a wide range of parameters during a long period, that it can be used for several users without hardware changes and restrictions, but that it is easily adjustable and configurable to the patient/user depending on her/his current status [51]. Anywhere, anything, anytime, and anyone are the A4 demands important to physicians. We note that A4 and C4 also contain mutual interests [52].
According to the A4 and C4 criteria, we suggest “quantified customized output: unified, unique, ubiquitous, and unobtrusive (U4)” for future-generation wearables that constitute G 4 (Figure 1).
We provide a strict definition of U4 as:
  • Unified: the sensor addresses data fusion and mutual interactive effects.
  • Unique: the output value that is only significant with respect to the user (customized profile) and the particular study (library-based).
  • Ubiquitous: the potential of the device to measure all four domains under different conditions.
  • Unobtrusive: address the concern of the inconvenience of monitoring using wearables.
Having a quantifiable customized output addresses and links the mutual interaction between the customized profile of the user and the disease profile. This feature is supported by comprehensive healthcare monitoring as the fundamental theory of G 4 wearables. To deliver a quantified customized output, data fusion, integration, interaction, along with assigning weights to interactive elements, and modeling the input/output route of data are essential. Consequently, developing the patterns and algorithms of collected data from these domains is necessary. The output is absolute (rather than relative) and informative to the user with respect to the disease, providing an early digitized warning in abnormalities.
The following example provides perspective with respect to the approach. The exposure to air pollutants (environmental) can significantly reduce physical activity (behavioral) and result in a malfunction of the patient‘s respiratory system and heart (physiological), which consequently may lead to stress development (psychological). However, in this particular example, the impact of pollutants on the exposed user is a function of the user’s profile, which varies among users [53]. Thus, we suggest user profile customization via library division. This is accomplished by observation of the user for a limited period to carefully specify the user’s profile and characteristics. To create an efficient user-based profile, the user’s general information consists of parameters such as age, sex, height, weight (which should be set manually), historical medical records, and lifestyle (e.g., being a smoker, which should be obtained via observation); the living location would also be helpful because of atmospheric conditions. However, profile customization includes personalized data and transmission of the physiological/psychological data, which raises security concerns and creates the potential risk of endangering personal privacy [10,54,55]. Although a number of approaches have been developed and studied for data security and privacy protection [56,57,58,59], the more recent and advanced approaches concentrate on data sharing and security via blockchain [60,61].
The library addresses all specifications of a disease and respective thresholds. The library is loaded and the device is configured based on the aim of disease-oriented monitoring or general data collection that tracks the general daily health status. Library-based monitoring is a flexible solution to allow interactive communication between physicians and users via the wearable to set up the target parameters for diseases (disease orientation) [62]. The library is the collection of all related and intended diseases with their characteristics, profiles, and thresholds. The link between the library and the user profile significantly improves weighting the effect of a particular parameter and enhances the accuracy of the quantified output and consequently contributes to decision making.
Software modeling and development should be supported with an appropriate hardware design. As a result of the diversity of sensors and the nature of data, the localization and positioning of the respective sensors are challenging. We think that future wearables, even with comprehensive monitoring, can be unobtrusive and miniaturized. The approach we suggest is based on distributed sensors and centralized processing. In this manuscript, distributed indicates the sensors in different layers, which we call a “tray of sensors”. The traditional approaches are basically implemented on the “XY” (2D) plane. According to the 2D approach, additional sensors impose further spaces and expand the dimension. We propose a 3D cube holding several trays of sensors with multiple physical layers on top of each other, each consisting of a sensor domain. The inner and outer surfaces of this 3D cube will be enriched with sensors. In the 3D cube, we suggest breaking down the 2D plane into smaller pieces. Increasing the number of layers allows the designer to add sensors. This comes at the cost of a slight height expansion of the wearable, which is tolerable. We considered board-to-board connectors in the form of male/female in mm scale to support the signaling between sensors and processing unit. A significant aspect of this approach is modularity, which is provided with such connectors.
Measuring physiological and psychological parameters requires direct contact with the body, whereas the environmental sensors more often need to be freely exposed to air, and the IMUs may be located arbitrarily anywhere on a wearable. This physical hardware approach is supported by bidirectional data transmission to enable a modular approach with replaceable trays that meaningfully contribute to the data setup, library-based, and customized user-based features according to the healthcare provider’s requirement for investigation.

5. Conclusions

Our conceptual approach delivers quantifiable personalized output to significantly indicate the current health status of a user in future generations of wearables. Thus, the approach aims to close the gap between the subject, healthcare professional, and unprofessional caregiver perspectives, to establish interactive communication, motivate the patients using wearables, and to facilitate precise and seamless decision-making to accelerate the evolution of wearables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H.; methodology, M.H.; investigation, M.H.; writing–original draft preparation, M.H.; writing–review and editing, M.H. and T.M.D.; visualization, M.H. and T.M.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publication Funds of the Technische Universität Braunschweig.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Balas, V.E.; Solanki, V.K.; Kumar, R.; Ahad, M.A.R. A Handbook of Internet of Things in Biomedical and Cyber Physical System; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Reyes-Mercado, P.; Hernández, G.J.L. Reverse Entrepreneurship in Latin America: Internationalization from Emerging Markets to Developed Economies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Awolusi, I.; Marks, E.; Hallowell, M. Wearable technology for personalized construction safety monitoring and trending: Review of applicable devices. Autom. Constr. 2018, 85, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lee-Smith, M.; Ross, T.; Maguire, M.; Tso, F.P.; Morley, J.; Cavazzi, S. What can we expect from navigating? Exploring navigation, wearables and data through critical design concepts. In Companion Publication of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2019 Companion; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 237–244. [Google Scholar]
  5. Asimakopoulos, S.; Asimakopoulos, G.; Spillers, F. Motivation and user engagement in fitness tracking: Heuristics for mobile healthcare wearables. Informatics 2017, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Ray, T.; Choi, J.; Reeder, J.; Lee, S.P.; Aranyosi, A.J.; Ghaffari, R.; Rogers, J.A. Soft, skin-interfaced wearable systems for sports science and analytics. Curr. Opin. Biomed. Eng. 2019, 9, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Haghi, M.; Danyali, S.; Thurow, K.; Warnecke, J.M.; Wang, J.; Deserno, T.M. Hardware prototype for wrist-worn simultaneous monitoring of environmental, behavioral, and physiological parameters. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sun, W.; Liu, J.; Zhang, H. When smart wearables meet intelligent vehicles: Challenges and future directions. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2017, 24, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kong, X.T.; Luo, H.; Huang, G.Q.; Yang, X. Industrial wearable system: The human-centric empowering technology in Industry 4.0. J. Intell. Manuf. 2019, 30, 2853–2869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Metcalf, D.; Milliard, S.T.; Gomez, M.; Schwartz, M. Wearables and the internet of things for health: Wearable, interconnected devices promise more efficient and comprehensive health care. IEEE Pulse 2016, 7, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wu, J.; Li, H.; Cheng, S.; Lin, Z. The promising future of healthcare services: When big data analytics meets wearable technology. Inf. Manag. 2016, 53, 1020–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sung, M.; Marci, C.; Pentland, A. Wearable feedback systems for rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2005, 2, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Neubert, S.; Geißler, A.; Roddelkopf, T.; Stoll, R.; Sandmann, K.H.; Neumann, J.; Thurow, K. Multi-sensor-fusion approach for a data-science-oriented preventive health management system: Concept and development of a decentralized data collection approach for heterogeneous data sources. Int. J. Telemed. Appl. 2019, 2019, 9864246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Dunn, J.; Runge, R.; Snyder, M. Wearables and the medical revolution. Pers. Med. 2018, 15, 429–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Tolba, A.; Said, O.; Al-Makhadmeh, Z. MDS: Multi-level decision system for patient behavior analysis based on wearable device information. Comput. Commun. 2019, 147, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Friel, C.P.; Garber, C.E. An examination of the relationship between motivation, physical activity, and wearable activity monitor use. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2020, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bariya, M.; Nyein, H.Y.Y.; Javey, A. Wearable sweat sensors. Nat. Electron. 2018, 1, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lobelo, F.; Kelli, H.M.; Tejedor, S.C.; Pratt, M.; McConnell, M.V.; Martin, S.S.; Welk, G.J. The wild wild west: A framework to integrate mHealth software applications and wearables to support physical activity assessment, counseling and interventions for cardiovascular disease risk reduction. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2016, 58, 584–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Tricoli, A.; Nasiri, N.; De, S. Wearable and miniaturized sensor technologies for personalized and preventive medicine. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1605271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Healthatglance. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2018_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf. (accessed on 31 August 2020).
  21. Sood, S.K.; Mahajan, I. Wearable IoT sensor based healthcare system for identifying and controlling chikungunya virus. Comput. Ind. 2017, 91, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Luo, H. Wearable Mini-Size Intelligent Healthcare System. U.S. Patent 9,044,136, 2 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bruno, E.; Simblett, S.; Lang, A.; Biondi, A.; Odoi, C.; Schulze-Bonhage, A.; Wykes, T.; Richardson, M.P.; RADAR-CNS Consortium. Wearable technology in epilepsy: The views of patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Epilepsy Behav. 2018, 85, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Raber, I.; McCarthy, C.P.; Yeh, R.W. Health insurance and mobile health devices: Opportunities and concerns. JAMA 2019, 321, 1767–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rivas, H.; Wac, K. Digital Health; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bair, S.L.; Meredith, R.L.; Tillotson, D.R.; Inglis, P. System and Method for Reporting Behavioral Health Care Data. US Patent 6,067,523, 23 May 2000. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ghose, A.; Sinha, P.; Bhaumik, C.; Sinha, A.; Agrawal, A.; Dutta Choudhury, A. UbiHeld: Ubiquitous healthcare monitoring system for elderly and chronic patients. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing Adjunct Publication, Zurich, Switzerland, 8–12 September 2013; pp. 1255–1264. [Google Scholar]
  28. Haghi, M.; Neubert, S.; Geissler, A.; Fleischer, H.; Stoll, N.; Stoll, R.; Thurow, K. A flexible and pervasive IoT based healthcare platform for physiological and environmental parameters monitoring. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 7, 5628–5647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Morgenthaler, T.; Kramer, M.; Alessi, C.; Friedman, L.; Boehlecke, B.; Brown, T.; Coleman, J.; Kapur, V.; Lee-Chiong, T.; Owens, J.; et al. Practice parameters for the psychological and behavioral treatment of insomnia: An update. An American Academy of Sleep Medicine report. Sleep 2006, 29, 1415–1419. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ayata, D.; Yaslan, Y.; Kamasak, M.E. Emotion based music recommendation system using wearable physiological sensors. IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron. 2018, 64, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schlachetzki, J.C.; Barth, J.; Marxreiter, F.; Gossler, J.; Kohl, Z.; Reinfelder, S.; Gassner, H.; Aminian, K.; Eskofier, B.M.; Winkler, J.; et al. Wearable sensors objectively measure gait parameters in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chan, M.; Estève, D.; Fourniols, J.Y.; Escriba, C.; Campo, E. Smart wearable systems: Current status and future challenges. Artif. Intell. Med. 2012, 56, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Piwek, L.; Ellis, D.A.; Andrews, S.; Joinson, A. The rise of consumer health wearables: Promises and barriers. PLoS Med. 2016, 13, e1001953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Madgwick, S.O.; Harrison, A.J.; Vaidyanathan, R. Estimation of IMU and MARG orientation using a gradient descent algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Zurich, Switzerland, 29 June–1 July 2011; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  35. Haghi, M.; Stoll, R.; Thurow, K. Pervasive and personalized ambient parameters monitoring: A wearable, modular, and configurable watch. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 20126–20143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ray, T.R.; Choi, J.; Bandodkar, A.J.; Krishnan, S.; Gutruf, P.; Tian, L.; Ghaffari, R.; Rogers, J.A. Bio-integrated wearable systems: A comprehensive review. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 5461–5533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Garbarino, M.; Lai, M.; Bender, D.; Picard, R.W.; Tognetti, S. Empatica E3—A wearable wireless multi-sensor device for real-time computerized biofeedback and data acquisition. In Proceedings of the 2014 4th IEEE International Conference on Wireless Mobile Communication and Healthcare-Transforming Healthcare Through Innovations in Mobile and Wireless Technologies (MOBIHEALTH), Athens, Greece, 3–5 November 2014; pp. 39–42. [Google Scholar]
  38. Cho, H. Personal environmental monitoring system and network platform. In Proceedings of the 2015 9th IEEE International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST), Auckland, New Zealand, 8–10 December 2015; pp. 751–756. [Google Scholar]
  39. Seoane, F.; Mohino-Herranz, I.; Ferreira, J.; Alvarez, L.; Buendia, R.; Ayllón, D.; Llerena, C.; Gil-Pita, R. Wearable biomedical measurement systems for assessment of mental stress of combatants in real time. Sensors 2014, 14, 7120–7141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ambient (Outdoor) Air Pollution. Available online: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health (accessed on 31 August 2020).
  41. Logue, J.M.; Price, P.N.; Sherman, M.H.; Singer, B.C. A method to estimate the chronic health impact of air pollutants in US residences. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Ren, M.; Li, N.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X.; Chu, Y.; Li, X.; Zhu, Z.; Tian, L.; Xiang, H. The short-term effects of air pollutants on respiratory disease mortality in Wuhan, China: Comparison of time-series and case-crossover analyses. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Meo, S.; Suraya, F. Effect of environmental air pollution on cardiovascular diseases. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2015, 19, 4890–4897. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Kelly, F.J. Oxidative stress: Its role in air pollution and adverse health effects. Occup. Environ. Med. 2003, 60, 612–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Yang, W.; Omaye, S.T. Air pollutants, oxidative stress and human health. Mutat. Res. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2009, 674, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lin, C.; Gillespie, J.; Schuder, M.; Duberstein, W.; Beverland, I.; Heal, M. Evaluation and calibration of Aeroqual series 500 portable gas sensors for accurate measurement of ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 100, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Choi, S.; Kim, N.; Cha, H.; Ha, R. Micro sensor node for air pollutant monitoring: Hardware and software issues. Sensors 2009, 9, 7970–7987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Tran, V.T.; Riveros, C.; Ravaud, P. Patients’ views of wearable devices and AI in healthcare: Findings from the ComPaRe e-cohort. NPJ Digit. Med. 2019, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Genaro Motti, V.; Caine, K. Understanding the wearability of head-mounted devices from a human-centered perspective. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Seattle, WA, USA, 13–17 September 2014; pp. 83–86. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yang, H.; Yu, J.; Zo, H.; Choi, M. User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value. Telemat. Inform. 2016, 33, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Loos, J.R.; Davidson, E.J. Wearable health monitors and physician-patient communication: The physician’s perspective. In Proceedings of the 2016 49th IEEE Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2016; pp. 3389–3399. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kos, A.; Milutinović, V.; Umek, A. Challenges in wireless communication for connected sensors and wearable devices used in sport biofeedback applications. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 92, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yeo, J.C.; Lim, C.T.; Teck, C. Emerging flexible and wearable physical sensing platforms for healthcare and biomedical applications. Microsyst. Nanoeng. 2016, 2, 16043. [Google Scholar]
  54. Motti, V.G.; Caine, K. Users’ privacy concerns about wearables. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 231–244. [Google Scholar]
  55. Jovanov, E. Wearables meet IoT: Synergistic personal area networks (SPANs). Sensors 2019, 19, 4295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Zhang, K.; Yang, K.; Liang, X.; Su, Z.; Shen, X.; Luo, H.H. Security and privacy for mobile healthcare networks: From a quality of protection perspective. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2015, 22, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Starner, T. The challenges of wearable computing: Part 1. IEEE Micro 2001, 21, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Wang, H.; Peng, D.; Wang, W.; Sharif, H.; Chen, H.H.; Khoynezhad, A. Resource-aware secure ECG healthcare monitoring through body sensor networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2010, 17, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hathaliya, J.J.; Tanwar, S.; Tyagi, S.; Kumar, N. Securing electronics healthcare records in healthcare 4.0: Biometric-based approach. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2019, 76, 398–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Esposito, C.; De Santis, A.; Tortora, G.; Chang, H.; Choo, K.K.R. Blockchain: A panacea for healthcare cloud-based data security and privacy? IEEE Cloud Comput. 2018, 5, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mubarakali, A. Healthcare services monitoring in cloud using secure and robust healthcare-based BLOCKCHAIN (SRHB) approach. In Mobile Networks & Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  62. Seung, W.; Gupta, M.K.; Lee, K.Y.; Shin, K.S.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, T.Y.; Kim, S.; Lin, J.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, S.W. Nanopatterned textile-based wearable triboelectric nanogenerator. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 3501–3509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chemosensors 08 00085 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for future wearables.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for future wearables.
Chemosensors 08 00085 g001

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Haghi, M.; Deserno, T.M. General Conceptual Framework of Future Wearables in Healthcare: Unified, Unique, Ubiquitous, and Unobtrusive (U4) for Customized Quantified Output. Chemosensors 2020, 8, 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors8030085

AMA Style

Haghi M, Deserno TM. General Conceptual Framework of Future Wearables in Healthcare: Unified, Unique, Ubiquitous, and Unobtrusive (U4) for Customized Quantified Output. Chemosensors. 2020; 8(3):85. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors8030085

Chicago/Turabian Style

Haghi, Mostafa, and Thomas M. Deserno. 2020. "General Conceptual Framework of Future Wearables in Healthcare: Unified, Unique, Ubiquitous, and Unobtrusive (U4) for Customized Quantified Output" Chemosensors 8, no. 3: 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors8030085

APA Style

Haghi, M., & Deserno, T. M. (2020). General Conceptual Framework of Future Wearables in Healthcare: Unified, Unique, Ubiquitous, and Unobtrusive (U4) for Customized Quantified Output. Chemosensors, 8(3), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors8030085

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop