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: Evaluation of pain and stiffness in patients with arthritis is largely based on participants retrospectively reporting their self-perceived pain/stiffness. This is subjective and may not accurately reflect the true impact of therapeutic interventions. We now have access to sensor-based systems to continuously capture objective information regarding movement and activity. Objectives: We present an observational study aimed to collect sensor data from participants monitored while performing an unsupervised version of a standard motor task, known as the Five Times Sit to Stand (5×STS) test. The first objective was to explore whether the participants would perform the test regularly in their home environment, and do so in a correct and consistent manner. The second objective was to demonstrate that the measurements collected would enable us to derive an objective signal related to morning pain and stiffness. Methods: We recruited a total of 45 participants, of whom 30 participants fulfilled pre-defined criteria for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or psoriatic arthritis and 15 participants were healthy volunteers. All participants wore accelerometers on their wrists, day and night for about 4 weeks. The participants were asked to perform the 5×STS test in their own home environment at the same time in the morning 3 times per week. We investigated the relationship between pain/stiffness and measurements collected during the 5×STS test by comparing the 5×STS test duration with the patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, filled in via a smartphone. Results: During the study, we successfully captured accelerometer data from each participant for a period of 4 weeks. The participants performed 56% of the prescribed 5×STS tests. We observed that different tests made by the same participants were performed with subject-specific characteristics that remained consistent throughout the study. We showed that 5×STS test duration (the time taken to complete the 5×STS test) was significantly and robustly associated with the pain and stiffness intensity reported via the PROs, particularly the questions asked in the morning. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility and usefulness of regular, sensor-based, monitored, unsupervised physical tests to objectively assess the impact of disease on function in the home environment. This approach may permit remote disease monitoring in clinical trials and support the development of novel endpoints from passively collected actigraphy data.