Cited by 25Epilepsy research and treatmentMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Patients self-mastery of wearable devices for seizure detection: A direct user-experience

Open access
Bruno, E., Biondi, A., Thorpe, S., Richardson, M.P.·2020·Seizure

Abstract

Purpose wearable devices aimed at detecting seizures are rapidly emerging. Continuous collection and optimal data quality are paramount to guarantee the acquisition of clinically meaningful data. It is still unknown how successfully patients can self-manage new technologies and which factors have an impact on this. We assessed the performance of patients managing a wrist-worn device.Method patients wearing a wrist-worn device received a single training session to perform 5 tasks: (1) fitting the device correctly; (2) switching the device on and off; (3) charging the device on a daily basis; (4) pairing the device with a phone or tablet; (5) seeking assistance. Participants were then reviewed every 24 h and, at the end of the study, a Wearable technology Self-management Score (WSS) was calculated according to their performance in the different tasks (0-12). The association between WSS, seizure capture, demographics and clinical characteristics was analysed.Results Thirty patients were included. The mean WSS score was 9.4 ± 2.1 points. The task more often performed inaccurately was pairing the device with a phone or tablet, followed by performing charging procedures. A strong association was found between WSS and seizure capture (p = 0.019), with higher scores strongly associated with more seizures captured. A WSS of ≥9 was the minimum value of WSS that allowed the device to record all the seizures. Number of AEDs and illness-perception related factors (perceived disease timeline and personal control) were significantly associated with WSS.Conclusions Overall, participants demonstrated good performances in self-managing a wrist-worn device. Digital inequalities may extend to variations in how different individuals feel about their own disease and, consequently, manage the technology. These aspects should be addressed when technological solutions are delivered to users.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.seizure.2020.08.023

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Signal quality assessments have been done under more general circumstances, but wearable data quality in the context of epilepsy has not been a widely researched topic so far.

    “Signal quality assessments have been done under more general circumstances10,34–37, but wearable data quality in the context of epilepsy has not been a widely researched topic so far8,9,38.”

    From Data quality evaluation in wearable monitoring (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

  • Study participants had the best compliance concerning wearing the device and correctly fitting it, while compliance was worst when it came to pairing the device to a Bluetooth companion device, with frequent connection issues.

    “Study participants had the best compliance concerning wearing the device and correctly fitting it, while compliance was worst when it came to pairing the device to a Bluetooth companion device, with frequent connection issues.”

    From Data quality evaluation in wearable monitoring (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bruno, E., Biondi, A., Thorpe, S., & Richardson, M. P.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Bruno, E.
Venue
Seizure
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
81
Pages
236-240
ISSN
1059-1311 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3080454700
Cited by
25
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Seizure (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (115902)
  • European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
  • EFPIA
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
wearable devices, seizure detection, patient self-management, wrist-worn devices, user experience, device pairing, illness perception, perceived personal control, digital divide, epilepsy, automated seizure detection
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Humans, Seizures, Telephone

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review