Search

Background: Data derived from wearable activity trackers may provide important clinical insights into disease progression and response to intervention, but only if clinicians can interpret it in a meaningful manner. Longitudinal activity data can be visually presented in multiple ways, but research has failed to explore how clinicians interact with and interpret these visualisations. In response, this study developed a variety of visualisations to understand whether alternative data presentation strategies can provide clinicians with meaningful insights into patient’s physical activity patterns. Objective: To explore clinicians’ opinions on different visualisations of actigraphy data. Methods: Four visualisations (stacked bar chart, clustered bar chart, linear heatmap and radial heatmap) were created using Matplotlib and Seaborn Python libraries. A focus group was conducted with 14 clinicians across 2 hospitals. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Three major themes were identified: (1) the importance of context, (2) interpreting the visualisations and (3) applying visualisations to clinical practice. Although clinicians saw the potential value in the visualisations, they expressed a need for further contextual information to gain clinical benefits from them. Allied health professionals preferred more granular, temporal information compared to doctors. Specifically, physiotherapists favoured heatmaps, whereas the remaining members of the team favoured stacked bar charts. Overall, heatmaps were considered more difficult to interpret. Conclusion: The current lack of contextual data provided by wearables hampers their use in clinical practice. Clinicians favour data presented in a familiar format and yet desire multi-faceted filtering. Future research should implement user-centred design processes to identify ways in which all clinical needs can be met, potentially using an interactive system that caters for multiple levels of granularity. Irrespective of how data is displayed, unless clinicians can apply it in a manner that best supports their role, the potential of this data cannot be fully realised.

Background: Wearable sensors allow researchers to remotely capture digital health data, including physical activity, which may identify digital biomarkers to differentiate healthy and clinical cohorts. To date, research has focused on high-level data (e.g., overall step counts) which may limit our insights to whether people move differently, rather than how they move differently. Objective: This study therefore aimed to use actigraphy data to thoroughly examine activity patterns during the first hours following waking in arthritis patients (n = 45) and healthy controls (n = 30). Methods: Participants wore an Actigraph GT9X Link for 28 days. Activity counts were analysed and compared over varying epochs, ranging from 15 min to 4 h, starting with waking in the morning. The sum, and a measure of rate of change of cumulative activity in the period immediately after waking (area under the curve [AUC]) for each time period, was calculated for each participant, each day, and individual and group means were calculated. Two-tailed independent t tests determined differences between the groups. Results: No differences were seen for summed activity counts across any time period studied. However, differences were noted in the AUC analysis for the discrete measures of relative activity. Specifically, within the first 15, 30, 45, and 60 min following waking, the AUC for activity counts was significantly higher in arthritis patients compared to controls, particularly at the 30 min period (t = –4.24, p = 0.0002). Thus, while both cohorts moved the same amount, the way in which they moved was different. Conclusion: This study is the first to show that a detailed analysis of actigraphy variables could identify activity pattern changes associated with arthritis, where the high-level daily summaries did not. Results suggest discrete variables derived from raw data may be useful to help identify clinical cohorts and should be explored further to determine if they may be effective clinical biomarkers.