Three reasons why experts remain cautious about wearable generated health data:
- no international standards for hardware/software/data formats
- movement (of wearer + wearable itself) creates noise in the data
- batteries not powerful enough for continuous monitoring
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79zpzdv4vno
- no international standards for hardware/software/data formats
- movement (of wearer + wearable itself) creates noise in the data
- batteries not powerful enough for continuous monitoring
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79zpzdv4vno
Comments
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3359223
But key questions around integration into daily life and MDT IT systems remain
In other conditions different aspects also come into play - motivations, relative burdens of home self management etc
1) talk of “telecare” had been ongoing for many years there - due to cross-infection risks with in person clinics - but still rarely implemented
2) conversely it was established in Australia due to distances
3) 2yrs later Covid hit - so *had* to switch!
Wearables & other tech. Early data show wearables clearly measure something different to QoL, and changes in speech related to disease progression
Upcoming BrainWear2 trial will extend this
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37224155/