Validation and Acceptability of a Cuffless Wrist-Worn Wearable Blood Pressure Monitoring Device Among Users and Health Care Professionals: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) is an important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its long-term monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless devices enable the capture of multiple BP measures during everyday activities and could improve BP monitoring, but little is known about their validity or acceptability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate a wrist-worn cuffless wearable BP device (Model T2; TMART Technologies Limited) and assess its acceptability among users and health care professionals. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted to examine the validity and comparability of a wearable cuffless BP device against ambulatory and home devices. BP was measured simultaneously over 24 hours using wearable and ambulatory devices and over 7 days using wearable and home devices. Pearson correlation coefficients compared the degree of association between the measures, and limits of agreement (LOA; Bland-Altman plots) were generated to assess measurement bias. Semistructured interviews were conducted with users and 10 health care professionals to assess acceptability, facilitators, and barriers to using the wearable device. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 9090 BP measurements were collected from 20 healthy volunteers (mean 20.3 years, SD 5.4; N=10 females). Mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) measured using the ambulatory (24 hours), home (7 days), and wearable (7 days) devices were 126 (SD 10)/75 (SD 6) mm Hg, 112 (SD 10)/71 (SD 9) mm Hg and 125 (SD 4)/77 (SD 3) mm Hg, respectively. Mean (LOA) biases and precision between the wearable and ambulatory devices over 24 hours were 0.5 (-10.1 to 11.1) mm Hg for SBP and 2.24 (-17.6 to 13.1) mm Hg for DBP. The mean biases (LOA) and precision between the wearable and home device over 7 days were -12.7 (-28.7 to 3.4) mm Hg for SBP and -5.6 (-20.5 to 9.2) mm Hg for DBP. The wearable BP device was well accepted by participants who found the device easy to wear and use. Both participants and health care providers agreed that the wearable cuffless devices were easy to use and that they could be used to improve BP monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable BP measures compared well against a gold-standard ambulatory device, indicating potential for this user-friendly method to augment BP management, particularly by enabling long-term monitoring that could improve treatment titration and increase understanding of users' BP response during daily activity and stressors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".