The Benefits of Wearable Devices in Medical Field
What is the impact of wearable health devices on health and evaluate it effectiveness on continuous use intention?
The research question will be further revised after review of previous studies.
The aim of defining any research problem is to understand and interpret the rationale for a new research. To define a research problem, displaying the 4C characteristics is important. It involves constructs, concise, constraints and care. The constructs involves the factors that contribute to the research problem. Concise implies that the research problem should be specific and clearly defined. Moreover, it should clearly define the constraints and care gap in the current scenario (Flannery, 2021).
In the medical field, wearable devices are used to connect with patients, doctors and other parties to identify changes in their condition. It is useful in alleviating pain, treating diseases, health and safety monitoring and chronic diseases. It has found wide application in monitoring walking speed, measuring respiratory rate, blood oxygen, heart rate and energy expenditure. In case of older adults, wearable device is needed to address mobility, independent living and other needs (Dinh-Le et al. 2019; Tong 2018). Evidence has shown the effectiveness of using wearable devices for gait and fall quantification in older adults. It enabled health care professionals to monitor the viability of daily activities and recognized the type of movements needed to live independently. In case of children, it has been found useful in monitoring vital signs and routine and tracking children daily life activities (Lu et al 2020). Similarly, the study by Lee & Lee (2020) argues that despite the benefits of wearable technology, there is gap in the implementation of such technologies. The main constraints that have been identified is that there is poor application of the device in all settings.
From the research problem investigation, key constructs have been identified too. Although many research have reported about the benefits of wearable technology, however there is less number of studies on continuous use intention among people using the technique. New research in this area would help to identify gaps or the possibility of making wearable device a routine practice in clinical setting. It would help to interpret the feasibility of such devices in real setting. Thus, the main objective is to explore the continued use intention and the attitude of different population group regarding this aspect has not be explored in a single study. To further define the important constructs or elements needed for a new research in this area, it is planned to first review the research literature and then evaluate areas where research ambiguity exists. Depending on that, an appropriate research methodology can be designed in relation to the research question.
To plan appropriate research design for the research question, conducting literature review on the topic is important. The significance of literature review is that it can help to identify gap in previous research and identify areas where more research is needed. It can help to decide the appropriate research methodology for conducting future research on the same topic. The search for literature was conducted in Google scholar and databases such as CINAHL, PubMed and Medline. The key words used were ‘wearable devices’, ‘continous use intention’ and ‘health outcomes’.
Research Problem Investigation
Firstly, many research were done that explored the impact of wearable device on the experiences of older adults. The study by Chandrasekaran, Katthula and and Moustakas (2021) explored the use of wearable devices by older adults and their willingness to share data with care providers. The researchers also examined the willingness to share data from the devices to health care providers. Some of the advantages of the device identified for seniors were that it facilitates remote monitoring of older patients and inform physicians about any physical changes. Secondly, it is useful in tracking physical activity and giving alerts. Thirdly, it is useful for self-management of the disease by means of reminders and advice. The findings of the study revealed that the intention to use wearables increased with better education and household income. Strong positive association was found between income and the use of wearable devices. In addition, three variables affected the willingness to share data. It involved race, attitude and technology. The gap found in the study was that it was based on self-reported data and it could be subjected to reporting bias. Hence, the findings related continued use could not be clarified. A mixed method study by Farivar, Abouzahra and Ghasemaghaei (2020) was also conducted on wearable device adoption among older adults. The findings from an online survey and interviews revealed that the adaptability to the device was affected by senior’s perception of the complexity of working with wearable devices. However, it was not linked to ageing related disability. It was more linked to complexity of using the device. The consideration of cognitive age in the study is significant. The limitation left behind in the study is that the type of complexity has not been defined in detail.
The above gap implies that dedicated qualitative research design is needed to evaluate older adult’s experience with using wearable devices. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Moore et al. (2021) used qualitative research design to explore user experience after a trial with wearable device to understand user experience and their acceptance of the wearable device. It included evaluation of 20 papers and the key characteristics identified were device use, user characteristics, device features and integration into daily life. The motivation for device use was dependent on many user experiences. For instance, the age-related characteristics such as hearing loss, low vision and user’s dexterity affect the user’s comfort level. Another major barrier to adoption or the acceptance of such technologies were low self-efficacy for technology. Easy to use device features were expected by users and this use lead to continued device use. There were many who did not think that they need any device. The study reported about various aspects that influenced continued use. However, the gaps in the study were that it included studies done in western countries. The finding cannot be applied in non-western countries. The study gave the implications to conduct future research using large trials.
The study by Chandrasekaran, Katthula and Moustakas (2020) investigated about the patterns of use and key predictors for the use of wearable health care devices by US adults. By recruiting 4551 participants, the study evaluated the usage patterns of wearable health devices. The areas that were explored were use of wearables, frequency of use and willingness to share health data. Around 30% of the US adults were found to use wearable health devices. The common usage trend identified was that use of wearables declined with age. Adults aged less than 50 years were less likely to use wearables compared to younger age group aged 18-34 years. Women, white individuals, college graduates and those with high annual household income were more likely to use wearables. The finding clearly showed that wearable health care devices are under-realized in actual setting. It implies the need for more effort by clinicians to bridge the gap and use promotion and educational strategies to decrease the gap in utilization process.
Literature Review
The study by Hendker et al. (2020) evaluated the implication of wearable and the factors affecting the usage among recreationally active people. In this study, thirty nine participants received Fitbit Charge 2 fitness tracker. The main outcomes that were evaluated were usage time and amount of physical activity and influencing factors. The findings of the study revealed that most of the participants readily accepted the tracker. The main rationale for this was that general samples were not taken in the study. Instead, wearable responded or those were recreationally active were taken. The influencing factor in the study related to the hours worn. Other external factors influencing usage were weekdays. For instance, usage behavior was found to be low in Sunday. The study does not contribute to the research topic as the user intention is not explored. Hence, it is clear that the impact of continued user intention of wearable device use has not be explored effectively in previous research.
From the review of research literature, the main area of gap in the research topic is the lack of idea about the continued use intention among people. Based on the literature review, it could be interpreted that there is lack of long-term trial that investigated about continued use intention in qualitative research design. Hence, the research question that could help to answer the question is as follows:
In adult population group, what is their perception regarding continued use intention for wearable health devices and key health benefits?
- To explore adult groups attitude towards continued use intention for wearable health devices
- To evaluate the factors that determine acceptability of health devices
- To recommend strategies to promote use of wearable health devices among target population group.
The research hypothesis is that wearable health device can have beneficial effect on health by alleviating pain, treating disease and connecting to health care professionals from a distance. It is expected that the wearable health devices can be useful for older adults, pregnant women and patients.
References:
Chandrasekaran, R., Katthula, V. and Moustakas, E., 2021. Too old for technology? Use of wearable healthcare devices by older adults and their willingness to share health data with providers. Health Informatics Journal, 27(4), p.14604582211058073.
Chandrasekaran, R., Katthula, V., & Moustakas, E. (2020). Patterns of use and key predictors for the use of wearable health care devices by US adults: insights from a national survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(10), e22443.
Dinh-Le, C., Chuang, R., Chokshi, S., & Mann, D. (2019). Wearable health technology and electronic health record integration: scoping review and future directions. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(9), e12861.
Farivar, S., Abouzahra, M. and Ghasemaghaei, M., 2020. Wearable device adoption among older adults: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Information Management, 55, p.102209.
Flannery, K.V., 2021. The research problem. In Guilá Naquitz (pp. 3-18). Routledge.
Hendker, A., Jetzke, M., Eils, E., & Voelcker-Rehage, C. (2020). The implication of wearables and the factors affecting their usage among recreationally active people. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8532.
Lee, S. M., & Lee, D. (2020). Healthcare wearable devices: an analysis of key factors for continuous use intention. Service Business, 14(4), 503-531.
Lu, L., Zhang, J., Xie, Y., Gao, F., Xu, S., Wu, X. and Ye, Z., 2020. Wearable health devices in health care: narrative systematic review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8(11), p.e18907.
Moore, K., O’Shea, E., Kenny, L., Barton, J., Tedesco, S., Sica, M., Crowe, C., Alamäki, A., Condell, J., Nordström, A. and Timmons, S., 2021. Older adults’ experiences with using wearable devices: Qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(6), p.e23832.
Tong, R. ed., 2018. Wearable technology in medicine and health care. Academic Press.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
