Exploring the clinical context of adopting an instrumented insole: a qualitative study of clinicians’ preferences in England
File(s)e023656.full.pdf (381.9 KB)
Published version
Author(s)
Lin, Denise
Papi, Enrica
McGregor, Alison
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Objectives: This study explores clinicians’ views of the clinical uptake of a smart pressure-sensing insole, named Flexifoot, to enhance the care and management of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Clinicians are key users of wearable technologies, and can provide appropriate feedback for a specific device for successful clinical implementation.
Design: Qualitative study with in-depth, semi-structured interviews, analysed using inductive analysis to generate key themes.
Setting: Conducted in a University setting.
Participants: 30 clinicians were interviewed (11 physiotherapists, 11 orthopaedic surgeons, 5 general practitioners, 3 podiatrists).
Results: All clinicians regarded Flexifoot to be useful for the care and management of patients in adjunction to current methods. Responses revealed four main themes: use, data presentation, barriers to use, and future development. Flexifoot data was recognised as capable of enhancing information exchange between clinicians and patients, and also between clinicians themselves. Participants supported the use of feedback for rehabilitation, screening and evaluation of treatment progress/success purposes. Flexifoot use by patients was encouraged as a self-management tool that may motivate them by setting attainment goals. The data interface should be secure, concise and visually appealing. The measured parameters of Flexifoot, its duration of wear and frequency of data output would all depend on the rationale for its use. The clinicians and patients must collaborate to optimise the use of Flexifoot for long-term monitoring of disease for patient care in clinical practice. Many identified potential other uses for Flexifoot.
Conclusions: Clinicians thought that Flexifoot may complement and improve current methods of long-term patient management for OA or other conditions in clinical settings. Flexifoot was recognised to be useful for objective measures and should be tailored carefully for each person and condition to maximise compliance. Adopting the device, and other similar technologies, requires reducing the main barriers to use (time, cost, patient compliance) before its successful implementation.
Design: Qualitative study with in-depth, semi-structured interviews, analysed using inductive analysis to generate key themes.
Setting: Conducted in a University setting.
Participants: 30 clinicians were interviewed (11 physiotherapists, 11 orthopaedic surgeons, 5 general practitioners, 3 podiatrists).
Results: All clinicians regarded Flexifoot to be useful for the care and management of patients in adjunction to current methods. Responses revealed four main themes: use, data presentation, barriers to use, and future development. Flexifoot data was recognised as capable of enhancing information exchange between clinicians and patients, and also between clinicians themselves. Participants supported the use of feedback for rehabilitation, screening and evaluation of treatment progress/success purposes. Flexifoot use by patients was encouraged as a self-management tool that may motivate them by setting attainment goals. The data interface should be secure, concise and visually appealing. The measured parameters of Flexifoot, its duration of wear and frequency of data output would all depend on the rationale for its use. The clinicians and patients must collaborate to optimise the use of Flexifoot for long-term monitoring of disease for patient care in clinical practice. Many identified potential other uses for Flexifoot.
Conclusions: Clinicians thought that Flexifoot may complement and improve current methods of long-term patient management for OA or other conditions in clinical settings. Flexifoot was recognised to be useful for objective measures and should be tailored carefully for each person and condition to maximise compliance. Adopting the device, and other similar technologies, requires reducing the main barriers to use (time, cost, patient compliance) before its successful implementation.
Date Issued
2019-04-20
Date Acceptance
2019-03-08
Citation
BMJ Open, 2019, 9 (4), pp.1-8
ISSN
2044-6055
Publisher
BMJ Journals
Start Page
1
End Page
8
Journal / Book Title
BMJ Open
Volume
9
Issue
4
Copyright Statement
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Identifier
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/4/e023656.info
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Medicine, General & Internal
General & Internal Medicine
KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS
HEALTH-PROFESSIONALS
CHRONIC DISEASE
TECHNOLOGY
PREVENTION
MANAGEMENT
INJURIES
OUTCOMES
DESIGN
osteoarthritis
pressure sensors
self-managment
users’ preferences
wearable technologies
1103 Clinical Sciences
1117 Public Health and Health Services
1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2019-04-20