Wearable sensor and smartphone assisted vestibular physical therapy for multiple sclerosis: usability and outcomes.
D Meldrum, H Kearney, S Hutchinson and 2 others
PMID 39050817WHAT IT FOUND
People with MS found a home-based vestibular therapy app with a head sensor easy to use and helpful.
They improved balance and reported less dizziness, though adherence averaged 60%. This is a usability study, not proof the tech works better than standard care.
Key findings
01Participants rated the usability of the app and sensor highly, with a mean System Usability Scale score of 81, which is above the acceptable threshold of 70.
02Adherence to the prescribed exercises averaged 60.1%, and there was no significant correlation between how usable participants found the system and how often they exercised.
03While not powered for efficacy, participants showed statistically significant improvements in balance, dynamic visual acuity, and gait function, alongside reduced dizziness symptoms.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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 was designed to test usability, not efficacy, and was underpowered for clinical outcomes. There was no control group, so improvements cannot be attributed solely to the digital system versus natural variation or standard therapy. Participants were all independently mobile, limiting generalizability to those with more severe disability. Adherence was only 60%, and the reasons for non-adherence were not fully explored. Long-term effects were not assessed.
Declared interests
The study was funded by Enterprise Ireland Research Commercialization Funds. The authors declare financial support was received for the research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that this digital system is more effective than standard face-to-face vestibular therapy. The study lacked a control group and was not powered to prove efficacy, so the observed improvements may reflect the therapy itself rather than the technology.