Elisa Bruno1, Sara Simblett2, Alexandra Lang3, Andrea Biondi1, Clarissa Odoi2, Andreas Schulze-Bonhage4, Til Wykes5, Mark P Richardson6. 1. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Division of Neuroscience, King's College London, 5 Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RX, UK. 2. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK. 3. NIHR Mental Health MedTech Co-operative, Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham NG7 2TU, UK. 4. Epilepsy Center, Department Presurgical Diagnostics, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Strasse 86b, 79110 Freiburg, Germany. 5. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK; South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 6. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Division of Neuroscience, King's College London, 5 Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RX, UK; Centre for Epilepsy, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK. Electronic address: mark.richardson@kcl.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In recent years, digital technology and wearable devices applied to seizure detection have progressively become available. In this study, we investigated the perspectives of people with epilepsy (PWE), caregivers (CG), and healthcare professionals (HP). We were interested in their current use of digital technology as well as their willingness to use wearables to monitor seizures. We also explored the role of factors influencing engagement with technology, including demographic and clinical characteristics, data confidentiality, need for technical support, and concerns about strain or increased workload. METHODS: An online survey drawing on previous data collected via focus groups was constructed and distributed via a web link. Using logistic regression analyses, demographic, clinical, and other factors identified to influence engagement with technology were correlated with reported use and willingness to use digital technology and wearables for seizure tracking. RESULTS: Eighty-seven surveys were completed, fifty-two (59.7%) by PWE, 13 (14.4%) by CG, and 22 (25.3%) by HP. Responders were familiar with multiple digital technologies, including the Internet, smartphones, and personal computers, and the use of digital services was similar to the UK average. Moreover, age and disease-related factors did not influence access to digital technology. The majority of PWE were willing to use a wearable device for long-term seizure tracking. However, only a limited number of PWE reported current regular use of wearables, and nonusers attributed their choice to uncertainty about the usefulness of this technology in epilepsy care. People with epilepsy envisaged the possibility of understanding their condition better through wearables and considered, with caution, the option to send automatic emergency calls. Despite concerns around accuracy, data confidentiality, and technical support, these factors did not limit PWE's willingness to use digital technology. Caregivers appeared willing to provide support to PWE using wearables and perceived a reduction of their workload and anxiety. Healthcare professionals identified areas of application for digital technologies in their clinical practice, pending an appropriate reorganization of the clinical team to share the burden of data reviewing and handling. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike people who have other chronic health conditions, PWE appeared not to be at risk of digital exclusion. This study highlighted a great interest in the use of wearable technology across epilepsy service users, carers, and healthcare professionals, which was independent of demographic and clinical factors and outpaced data security and technology usability concerns.
PURPOSE: In recent years, digital technology and wearable devices applied to seizure detection have progressively become available. In this study, we investigated the perspectives of people with epilepsy (PWE), caregivers (CG), and healthcare professionals (HP). We were interested in their current use of digital technology as well as their willingness to use wearables to monitor seizures. We also explored the role of factors influencing engagement with technology, including demographic and clinical characteristics, data confidentiality, need for technical support, and concerns about strain or increased workload. METHODS: An online survey drawing on previous data collected via focus groups was constructed and distributed via a web link. Using logistic regression analyses, demographic, clinical, and other factors identified to influence engagement with technology were correlated with reported use and willingness to use digital technology and wearables for seizure tracking. RESULTS: Eighty-seven surveys were completed, fifty-two (59.7%) by PWE, 13 (14.4%) by CG, and 22 (25.3%) by HP. Responders were familiar with multiple digital technologies, including the Internet, smartphones, and personal computers, and the use of digital services was similar to the UK average. Moreover, age and disease-related factors did not influence access to digital technology. The majority of PWE were willing to use a wearable device for long-term seizure tracking. However, only a limited number of PWE reported current regular use of wearables, and nonusers attributed their choice to uncertainty about the usefulness of this technology in epilepsy care. People with epilepsy envisaged the possibility of understanding their condition better through wearables and considered, with caution, the option to send automatic emergency calls. Despite concerns around accuracy, data confidentiality, and technical support, these factors did not limit PWE's willingness to use digital technology. Caregivers appeared willing to provide support to PWE using wearables and perceived a reduction of their workload and anxiety. Healthcare professionals identified areas of application for digital technologies in their clinical practice, pending an appropriate reorganization of the clinical team to share the burden of data reviewing and handling. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike people who have other chronic health conditions, PWE appeared not to be at risk of digital exclusion. This study highlighted a great interest in the use of wearable technology across epilepsy service users, carers, and healthcare professionals, which was independent of demographic and clinical factors and outpaced data security and technology usability concerns.
Authors: Lmar M Babrak; Joseph Menetski; Michael Rebhan; Giovanni Nisato; Marc Zinggeler; Noé Brasier; Katja Baerenfaller; Thomas Brenzikofer; Laurenz Baltzer; Christian Vogler; Leo Gschwind; Cornelia Schneider; Fabian Streiff; Peter M A Groenen; Enkelejda Miho Journal: Digit Biomark Date: 2019-08-16
Authors: Marion C Hogg; Rana Raoof; Hany El Naggar; Naser Monsefi; Norman Delanty; Donncha F O'Brien; Sebastian Bauer; Felix Rosenow; David C Henshall; Jochen Hm Prehn Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: A Schulze-Bonhage; S Böttcher; M Glasstetter; N Epitashvili; E Bruno; M Richardson; K V Laerhoven; M Dümpelmann Journal: Nervenarzt Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.214
Authors: Alison Keogh; William Johnston; Mitchell Ashton; Niladri Sett; Ronan Mullan; Seamas Donnelly; Jonas F Dorn; Francesc Calvo; Brian Mac Namee; Brian Caulfield Journal: Digit Biomark Date: 2020-11-26
Authors: Jacob A Andrews; Michael P Craven; Jennifer Jamnadas-Khoda; Alexandra R Lang; Richard Morriss; Chris Hollis Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Benjamin H Brinkmann; Philippa J Karoly; Ewan S Nurse; Sonya B Dumanis; Mona Nasseri; Pedro F Viana; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage; Dean R Freestone; Greg Worrell; Mark P Richardson; Mark J Cook Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Ashley Marie Polhemus; Jan Novák; Jose Ferrao; Sara Simblett; Marta Radaelli; Patrick Locatelli; Faith Matcham; Maximilian Kerz; Janice Weyer; Patrick Burke; Vincy Huang; Marissa Fallon Dockendorf; Gergely Temesi; Til Wykes; Giancarlo Comi; Inez Myin-Germeys; Amos Folarin; Richard Dobson; Nikolay V Manyakov; Vaibhav A Narayan; Matthew Hotopf Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Ghayth AlMahadin; Ahmad Lotfi; Eva Zysk; Francesco Luke Siena; Marie Mc Carthy; Philip Breedon Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 2.474