Evidence mapPaperPMID 34766912Full record

Trial reportJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Experiences of Wearable Technology by Persons with Knee Osteoarthritis Participating in a Physical Activity Counseling Intervention: Qualitative Study Using a Relational Ethics Lens.

Jenny Leese, Graham MacDonald, Catherine L Backman, Anne Townsend, Laura Nimmon, Linda C Li

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Ethical issues experienced by persons with rheumatoid arthritis in a wearable-enabled physical activity intervention study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jenny LeeseFaculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0460-4317
Graham MacDonaldFaculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2788-1499
Catherine L BackmanFaculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4190-7947
Anne TownsendArthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8114-752X
Laura NimmonFaculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7291-603X
Linda C LiFaculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6280-0511
University of British Columbia · CAResearch Canada · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent evidence indicates physical activity wearables could support persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA) to be more physically active. However, recent evidence also identifies some persons with arthritis experience guilt or worry while using a wearable if they are not as active as they feel they should be. Questions remain around how persons with knee OA experience benefits or downsides using a wearable in their everyday lives. Better understanding is needed if wearables are to be incorporated in arthritis self-management in ethically aware ways.

objectiveUsing an ethics lens, we aimed to describe a range of experiences from persons with knee OA who used a wearable during a physical activity counseling intervention study.

methodsThis is a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews nested within a randomized controlled trial. Guided by phenomenography, we explored the experiences of persons with knee OA following participation in a physical activity counseling intervention that involved using a Fitbit Flex and biweekly phone calls with a study physiotherapist (PT) in an 8-week period. Benefits or downsides experienced in participants' relationships with themselves or the study PT when using the wearable were identified using a relational ethics lens.

resultsInterviews with 21 participants (12 females and 9 males) aged 40 to 82 years were analyzed. Education levels ranged from high school graduates (4/21, 19%) to bachelor's degrees or above (11/21, 52%). We identified 3 categories of description: (1) participants experienced their wearable as a motivating or nagging influence to be more active, depending on how freely they were able to make autonomous choices about physical activity in their everyday lives; (2) some participants felt a sense of accomplishment from seeing progress in their wearable data, which fueled their motivation; (3) for some participants, sharing wearable data helped to build mutual trust in their relationship with the study PT. However, they also expressed there was potential for sharing wearable data to undermine this trust, particularly if this data was inaccurate.

conclusionsFindings provide an early glimpse into positive and negative emotional impacts of using a wearable that can be experienced by participants with knee OA when participating in a randomized controlled trial to support physical activity. To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study that uses a relational ethics lens to explore how persons with arthritis experienced changes in their relationship with a health professional when using a wearable during research participation.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeWearable Electronic DevicesCounselingExerciseFemaleFitness TrackersHumansMalearthritisphysical activityqualitativerelational ethicswearable

Identifiers

PMID34766912
PMCPMC8663466
OpenAlexW3200528280

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.