A Survey of Perceptions and Acceptance of Wearable Technology for Health Monitoring in a Urological Patient Population. Issue 6 (November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nehra, Avinash K.; Gettman, Matthew T.; Rivera, Marcelino E.; Agarwal, Deepak K.; O'Neil, Daniel A.; Jenkins, Sarah M.; Tollefson, Matthew K.; Viers, Boyd R.
• Is Part Of: Urology practice. Volume 4:Issue 6(2017)
• Publication Date: 2017-11
• Subjects: monitoring -- physiologic -- feedback -- perception -- urology -- fitness trackers
• DOI: 10.1016/j.urpr.2016.10.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-0779

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: : Through real‐time monitoring of biophysical parameters, physical activity monitors may represent a medium by which urologists can actively engage patients and improve treatment outcomes. We examined patient reported acceptance of physical activity monitor technology in an ambulatory urology setting. Methods: : Patients treated at a single urology department during a 6‐month period were identified. A web based survey was conducted evaluating patient characteristics and acceptance of physical activity monitors. Results: : A total of 1, 043 (19%) patients completed the survey, of whom 210 (20%) reported using physical activity monitors for health and wellness. Overall 854 (82%) respondents were willing to use these devices for urological care. Compared to patients who disagreed, those willing to use physical activity monitors for medical care reported greater perceived medical benefit (86% vs 14%), improved communication (85% vs 26%), confidentiality (89% vs 45%), less interference with daily activity (4% vs 55%) and improved health (81% vs 13%, all p <0.0001). Benefits and usefulness among accepting patients included health monitoring convenience (82%), goal related feedback (82%), ease of communication (57%) and monitoring of post‐procedure recovery (56%). After controlling for associated patient characteristics, the degree of perceived burden, medical benefit, health improvement and enhancement in communication were modifiable, and independently associated with physical activity monitor acceptance. Conclusions: : There is a high level of acceptance for wearable technology among urology patients. This may have significant implications for improving patient engagement, perioperative care pathways and surgical outcomes. Finally, these findings may assist urologists in directing future efforts to clinically integrate physical activity monitors to enhance patient acceptance and potential outcomes.