Wearables in epilepsy and Parkinson's disease—A focus group study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: Wearable sensors that measure movement and physiological variables are attractive for clinical evaluation of neurological diseases such as epilepsy and Parkinson's disease (PD). The aim of this study was to explore perceptions regarding the use of wearable technology in disease monitoring and management as reported by individuals with epilepsy and Parkinson's disease as well as health professionals working with these patient groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patient groups (n=25) and two groups with health professionals (n=15) participated in this qualitative, descriptive study with focus group interviews. A manifest qualitative content analysis was used. RESULTS: Four categories and nine subcategories emerged from the analysis. Participants saw possible benefits for improved treatment effect and valued this benefit more than possible inconvenience of wearing the sensors. Discrete design and simplicity were considered as facilitators for improved usability. They emphasized the importance of interactive information between patients and health professionals. However, they were concerned about unclear information and inconclusive recordings and some fears about personal integrity were at odds with the expectations on interactivity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients need to feel well informed and find an added value in using wearables. Wearables need to be user-friendly, have an attractive design, and show clinical efficacy in improving disease management. Variations in perceptions regarding integrity, benefits, and effectiveness of monitoring indicate possible conflicts of expectations among participants. The engagement of end users, patients, and health professionals, in the design and implementation process, is crucial for the development of wearable devices that enhance and facilitate neurological rehabilitation practice.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Visually conspicuous wearables may increase disease stigmatization.
“Individuals with a neurological condition might find it difficult to interact with technology due to physical or cognitive limitations, and visually conspicuous wearables may increase disease stigmatization [3].”
From Wearable sensors for clinical applications in epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and stroke: A mixed-methods systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [3]
Individuals with a neurological condition might find it difficult to interact with technology due to physical or cognitive limitations.
“Individuals with a neurological condition might find it difficult to interact with technology due to physical or cognitive limitations, and visually conspicuous wearables may increase disease stigmatization [3].”
From Wearable sensors for clinical applications in epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and stroke: A mixed-methods systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [3]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 87
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Krueger R, Casey M. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 5th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2015.
- Authors
- Ozanne, A., Johansson, D., Hällgren Graneheim, U., Malmgren, K., Bergquist, F., & Alt Murphy, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Department of Nursing Umeå University Umeå Sweden
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology Sahlgrenska Academy University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden
- Corresponding author
- Ozanne, A.
- Venue
- Acta Neurologica Scandinavica
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-07-16
- Volume
- 137
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 188-194
- ISSN
- 0001-6314 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0404
- OpenAlex
- W2734939617
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6
- FWCI
- 14.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Acta Neurologica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Sahlgrenska Akademin (ALFGBG‐429901)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Keywords
- wearable sensors, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, patient perspectives, health professional perceptions, disease surveillance, disease management, usability, sensor design, patient-professional interaction, personal integrity, neurorehabilitation, end-user involvement
- MeSH terms
- Wearable Electronic Devices, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Epilepsy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Parkinson Disease, Focus Groups, Young Adult
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