OBJECTIVE: To gather information on the (a) types of wearable sensors, particularly personal activity monitors, currently used by occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals; (b) potential benefits of using such technologies in the workplace; and (c) perceived barriers preventing the widespread adoption of wearable sensors in industry. BACKGROUND: Wearable sensors are increasingly being promoted as a means to improve employee health and well-being, and there is mounting evidence supporting their use as exposure assessment and personal health tools. Despite this, many workplaces have been hesitant to adopt these technologies. METHODS: An electronic survey was emailed to 28,428 registered members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) and 1,302 professionals certified by the Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics (BCPE). RESULTS: A total of 952 valid responses were returned. Over half of respondents described being in favor of using wearable sensors to track OSH-related risk factors and relevant exposure metrics at their respective workplaces. However, barriers including concerns regarding employee privacy/confidentiality of collected data, employee compliance, sensor durability, the cost/benefit ratio of using wearables, and good manufacturing practice requirements were described as challenges precluding adoption. CONCLUSION: The broad adoption of wearable technologies appears to depend largely on the scientific community's ability to successfully address the identified barriers. APPLICATION: Investigators may use the information provided to develop research studies that better address OSH practitioner concerns and help technology developers operationalize wearable sensors to improve employee health and well-being.
OBJECTIVE: To gather information on the (a) types of wearable sensors, particularly personal activity monitors, currently used by occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals; (b) potential benefits of using such technologies in the workplace; and (c) perceived barriers preventing the widespread adoption of wearable sensors in industry. BACKGROUND: Wearable sensors are increasingly being promoted as a means to improve employee health and well-being, and there is mounting evidence supporting their use as exposure assessment and personal health tools. Despite this, many workplaces have been hesitant to adopt these technologies. METHODS: An electronic survey was emailed to 28,428 registered members of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) and 1,302 professionals certified by the Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics (BCPE). RESULTS: A total of 952 valid responses were returned. Over half of respondents described being in favor of using wearable sensors to track OSH-related risk factors and relevant exposure metrics at their respective workplaces. However, barriers including concerns regarding employee privacy/confidentiality of collected data, employee compliance, sensor durability, the cost/benefit ratio of using wearables, and good manufacturing practice requirements were described as challenges precluding adoption. CONCLUSION: The broad adoption of wearable technologies appears to depend largely on the scientific community's ability to successfully address the identified barriers. APPLICATION: Investigators may use the information provided to develop research studies that better address OSH practitioner concerns and help technology developers operationalize wearable sensors to improve employee health and well-being.
Authors: W Kent Anger; Diane L Elliot; Todd Bodner; Ryan Olson; Diane S Rohlman; Donald M Truxillo; Kerry S Kuehl; Leslie B Hammer; Dede Montgomery Journal: J Occup Health Psychol Date: 2014-12-22
Authors: Geoff Appelboom; Elvis Camacho; Mickey E Abraham; Samuel S Bruce; Emmanuel Lp Dumont; Brad E Zacharia; Randy D'Amico; Justin Slomian; Jean Yves Reginster; Olivier Bruyère; E Sander Connolly Journal: Arch Public Health Date: 2014-08-22
Authors: Patrick G Dempsey; Lydia M Kocher; Mahiyar F Nasarwanji; Jonisha P Pollard; Ashley E Whitson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-11-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Harish Chander; Reuben F Burch; Purva Talegaonkar; David Saucier; Tony Luczak; John E Ball; Alana Turner; Sachini N K Kodithuwakku Arachchige; Will Carroll; Brian K Smith; Adam Knight; Raj K Prabhu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: François Routhier; Noémie C Duclos; Émilie Lacroix; Josiane Lettre; Elizabeth Turcotte; Nathalie Hamel; François Michaud; Cyril Duclos; Philippe S Archambault; Laurent J Bouyer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Vito M Manghisi; Michele Fiorentino; Antonio Boccaccio; Michele Gattullo; Giuseppe L Cascella; Nicola Toschi; Antonio Pietroiusti; Antonio E Uva Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Micaela Porta; Massimiliano Pau; Pier Francesco Orrù; Maury A Nussbaum Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.390