Sara Katherine Simblett1, Andrea Biondi2, Elisa Bruno2, Dominic Ballard2, Amanda Stoneman3, Simon Lees4, Mark P Richardson5, Til Wykes6. 1. Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: sara.simblett@kcl.ac.uk. 2. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), London, United Kingdom. 3. Epilepsy Action (British Epilepsy Association), New Anstey House, Leeds, United Kingdom; RADAR-CNS Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 4. RADAR-CNS Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), London, United Kingdom; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, United Kingdom; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The health management of patients with epilepsy could be improved by wearing devices that reliably detect when epileptic seizures happen. For the devices to be widely adopted, they must be acceptable and easy to use for patients, and their views are very important. Previous studies have collected feedback from patients on hypothetical devices, but very few have examined experience of wearing actual devices. PURPOSE: This study assessed the first-hand experiences of people with epilepsy using wearable devices, continuously over a period of time. The aim was to understand how acceptable and easy they were to use, and whether it is reasonable to expect that people will use them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with a diagnosis of epilepsy admitted routinely to a hospital epilepsy monitoring unit were asked to wear one, or more, wearable biosensor devices, tested for seizure detection. The devices are designed to continuously monitor and record signals from the body (biosignals). Participants completed semistructured interviews about their experiences of wearing the device(s). A systematic thematic analysis extracted themes from the interviews, focusing on acceptability and usability. Feedback was organized into (1) participants' experiences of the devices, any support they required and reasons for stopping wearing them; (2) their thoughts about using this technology outside a hospital setting. RESULTS: Twenty-one people with epilepsy wore one, or more, wearable devices for an average of 112.81 (SD = 71.83) hours. Participants found the devices convenient, and had no problem wearing them in hospital or sharing the data collected from them with the researchers and medical professionals. However, the presence of wires, bulky size, discomfort, and need for support, moderated experience. Participants' thoughts about wearing them in everyday life were strongly influenced by how visible and perceived accuracy. Willingness to use a smartphone app to complete questionnaires depended on the frequency, number of questions, and support. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this work provides evidence about the feasibility and acceptability of using wearable devices to monitor seizure activity in people with epilepsy. Key barriers and facilitators to use while in hospital and hypothetical use in everyday life were identified and will be helpful for guiding future implementation.
BACKGROUND: The health management of patients with epilepsy could be improved by wearing devices that reliably detect when epileptic seizures happen. For the devices to be widely adopted, they must be acceptable and easy to use for patients, and their views are very important. Previous studies have collected feedback from patients on hypothetical devices, but very few have examined experience of wearing actual devices. PURPOSE: This study assessed the first-hand experiences of people with epilepsy using wearable devices, continuously over a period of time. The aim was to understand how acceptable and easy they were to use, and whether it is reasonable to expect that people will use them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with a diagnosis of epilepsy admitted routinely to a hospital epilepsy monitoring unit were asked to wear one, or more, wearable biosensor devices, tested for seizure detection. The devices are designed to continuously monitor and record signals from the body (biosignals). Participants completed semistructured interviews about their experiences of wearing the device(s). A systematic thematic analysis extracted themes from the interviews, focusing on acceptability and usability. Feedback was organized into (1) participants' experiences of the devices, any support they required and reasons for stopping wearing them; (2) their thoughts about using this technology outside a hospital setting. RESULTS: Twenty-one people with epilepsy wore one, or more, wearable devices for an average of 112.81 (SD = 71.83) hours. Participants found the devices convenient, and had no problem wearing them in hospital or sharing the data collected from them with the researchers and medical professionals. However, the presence of wires, bulky size, discomfort, and need for support, moderated experience. Participants' thoughts about wearing them in everyday life were strongly influenced by how visible and perceived accuracy. Willingness to use a smartphone app to complete questionnaires depended on the frequency, number of questions, and support. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this work provides evidence about the feasibility and acceptability of using wearable devices to monitor seizure activity in people with epilepsy. Key barriers and facilitators to use while in hospital and hypothetical use in everyday life were identified and will be helpful for guiding future implementation.
Authors: Sara Simblett; Mark Pennington; Matthew Quaife; Evangelia Theochari; Patrick Burke; Giampaolo Brichetto; Julie Devonshire; Simon Lees; Ann Little; Angie Pullen; Amanda Stoneman; Sarah Thorpe; Janice Weyer; Ashley Polhemus; Jan Novak; Erin Dawe-Lane; Daniel Morris; Magano Mutepua; Clarissa Odoi; Emma Wilson; Til Wykes Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: Sebastian Böttcher; Elisa Bruno; Nino Epitashvili; Matthias Dümpelmann; Nicolas Zabler; Martin Glasstetter; Valentina Ticcinelli; Sarah Thorpe; Simon Lees; Kristof Van Laerhoven; Mark P Richardson; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Andrea Biondi; Petroula Laiou; Elisa Bruno; Pedro F Viana; Martijn Schreuder; William Hart; Ewan Nurse; Deb K Pal; Mark P Richardson Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-03-19
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: Anouk van Westrhenen; George Petkov; Stiliyan N Kalitzin; Richard H C Lazeron; Roland D Thijs Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Andrea Biondi; Viviana Santoro; Pedro F Viana; Petroula Laiou; Deb K Pal; Elisa Bruno; Mark P Richardson Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2022-03-27 Impact factor: 6.740