Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38947186›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024

Putting the usability of wearable technology in forensic psychiatry to the test: a randomized crossover trial.

Peter C de Looff, Matthijs L Noordzij, Henk L I Nijman, Laurette Goedhard, Stefan Bogaerts, Robert Didden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Peter C de LooffBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Matthijs L NoordzijDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Twente University, Enschede, Netherlands.
Henk L I NijmanBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Laurette GoedhardScience and Treatment Innovation, Fivoor, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Stefan BogaertsScience and Treatment Innovation, Fivoor, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Robert DiddenBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Forensic psychiatric patients receive treatment to address their violent and aggressive behavior with the aim of facilitating their safe reintegration into society. On average, these treatments are effective, but the magnitude of effect sizes tends to be small, even when considering more recent advancements in digital mental health innovations. Recent research indicates that wearable technology has positive effects on the physical and mental health of the general population, and may thus also be of use in forensic psychiatry, both for patients and staff members. Several applications and use cases of wearable technology hold promise, particularly for patients with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning, as these devices are thought to be user-friendly and provide continuous daily feedback. Method: In the current randomized crossover trial, we addressed several limitations from previous research and compared the (continuous) usability and acceptance of four selected wearable devices. Each device was worn for one week by staff members and patients, amounting to a total of four weeks. Two of the devices were general purpose fitness trackers, while the other two devices used custom made applications designed for bio-cueing and for providing insights into physiological reactivity to daily stressors and events. Results: Our findings indicated significant differences in usability, acceptance and continuous use between devices. The highest usability scores were obtained for the two fitness trackers (Fitbit and Garmin) compared to the two devices employing custom made applications (Sense-IT and E4 dashboard). The results showed similar outcomes for patients and staff members. Discussion: None of the devices obtained usability scores that would justify recommendation for future use considering international standards; a finding that raises concerns about the adaptation and uptake of wearable technology in the context of forensic psychiatry. We suggest that improvements in gamification and motivational aspects of wearable technology might be helpful to tackle several challenges related to wearable technology.

Indexed as

digital mental healthextended confirmation modelforensic psychiatryintellectual disabilitysystem usability scaletechnology acceptance modelwearable technology

Identifiers

PMID38947186
PMCPMC11212012

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.