PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Chaiyawan Auepanwiriyakul AU - Sigourney Waibel AU - Joanna Songa AU - Paul Bentley AU - A. Aldo A. Faisal TI - Accuracy and Acceptability of Wearable Motion Tracking Smartwatches for Inpatient Monitoring AID - 10.1101/2020.07.24.20160663 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.07.24.20160663 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/27/2020.07.24.20160663.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/27/2020.07.24.20160663.full AB - Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) within an everyday consumer smartwatch offer a convenient and low-cost method to monitor the natural behaviour of hospital patients. However, their accuracy at quantifying limb motion, and clinical acceptability, have not yet been demonstrated. To this end we conducted a two-stage study: First, we compared the inertial accuracy of wrist-worn IMUs, both research-grade (Xsens MTw Awinda, and Axivity AX3) and consumer-grade (Apple Watch Series 3 and 5), relative to gold-standard optical motion tracking (OptiTrack). Given the moderate to strong performance of the consumer-grade sensors we then evaluated this sensor and surveyed the experiences and attitudes of hospital patients (N=44) and staff (N=15) following a clinical test in which patients wore smartwatches for 1.5– 24 hours in the second study. Results indicate that for acceleration, Xsens is more accurate than the Apple smartwatches and Axivity AX3 (RMSE 0.17±0.01 g; R2 0.88±0.01; RMSE 0.22±0.01 g; R2 0.64±0.01; RMSE 0.42±0.01 g; R2 0.43±0.01, respectively). However, for angular velocity, the smartwatches are marginally more accurate than Xsens (RMSE 1.28±0.01 rad/s; R2 0.85±0.00; RMSE 1.37±0.01 rad/s; R2 0.82± SE 0.01, respectively). Surveys indicated that in-patients and healthcare professionals strongly agreed that wearable motion sensors are easy to use, comfortable, unobtrusive, suitable for long term use, and do not cause anxiety or limit daily activities. Our results suggest that smartwatches achieved moderate to strong levels of accuracy compared to a gold-standard reference and are likely to be accepted as a pervasive measure of motion/behaviour within hospitals.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was funded by National Institute for Health Research Imperial College London Biomedical Research Centre.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All participants agreed to take part with no withdrawals. The study was ethically approved by Imperial College London University Science, Engineering and Technology Research Ethics Committee (ICREC). All participants gave informed consent to participate in the study and the clinical part of the study was ethically approved by the UK's Health Research Authority IRAS Project ID: 78462.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe raw sensor data traces can be made available upon request to the corresponding authors. The survey answer numbers have been published here in full.