It's not about the capture, it's about what we can learn": a qualitative study of experts' opinions and experiences regarding the use of wearable sensors to measure gait and physical activity.
Alison Keogh, Kristin Taraldsen, Brian Caulfield and 1 others
PMID 33975600WHAT IT FOUND
Researchers identified wearable sensors as a potential paradigm shift in gait analysis but found no clear clinical utility yet.
Data handling requires skills clinicians lack, and device outputs are often untrustworthy 'black boxes'. Multi-disciplinary teams are essential for future progress.
Key findings
01Wearable devices are widely available but lack clear clinical utility for routine practice, with researchers noting a gap between technical capability and what clinicians can meaningfully extract.
02Clinicians often lack the data processing skills required to analyse raw wearable data, leading to reliance on proprietary algorithms that researchers describe as untrustworthy 'black boxes'.
03Successful implementation requires multi-disciplinary teams combining clinical and technical expertise, as neither group currently possesses all the skills needed to interpret wearable data effectively.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study only included researchers from a single consortium (Mobilise-D), which may have introduced a positive bias towards wearable technology. Participants were experts with significant experience, so their views may not represent those of novice clinicians. The study focused specifically on gait and physical activity wearables, so findings may not apply to other types of digital health tools. Two of the three coders had physiotherapy backgrounds, which may have influenced the thematic analysis.
Declared interests
The study was part of the Mobilise-D project, funded by the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). The authors are members of this consortium. No other specific conflicts of interest were declared in the text provided.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the researchers' support for wearable technology as evidence that these devices are currently effective for clinical diagnosis or treatment planning. The study explicitly found that clinical utility is not yet clear and that data handling skills are lacking.