Short-Term Wearable Sensors for In-Hospital Medical and Surgical Patients: Mixed Methods Analysis of Patient Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous vital sign monitoring using wearable sensors may enable early detection of patient deterioration and sepsis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore patient experiences with wearable sensor technology and carry out continuous monitoring through questionnaire and interview studies in an acute hospital setting. METHODS: Patients were recruited for a wearable sensor study and were asked to complete a 9-item questionnaire. Patients responses were evaluated using a Likert scale and with continuous variables. A subgroup of surgical patients wearing a Sensium Vital Sign Sensor was invited to participate in semistructured interviews. The Sensium wearable sensor measures the vital signs: heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature. All interview data were subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Out of a total of 500 patients, 453 (90.6%) completed the questionnaire. Furthermore, 427 (85.4%) patients agreed that the wearable sensor was comfortable, 429 (85.8%) patients agreed to wear the patch again when in hospital, and 398 (79.6%) patients agreed to wear the patch at home. Overall, 12 surgical patients consented to the interviews. Five main themes of interest to patients emerged from the interviews: (1) centralized monitoring, (2) enhanced feelings of patient safety, (3) impact on nursing staff, (4) comfort and usability, and (5) future use and views on technology. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the feedback from patients using wearable monitoring sensors was strongly positive with relatively few concerns raised. Patients felt that the wearable sensors would improve their sense of safety, relieve pressure on health care staff, and serve as a favorable aspect of future health care technology.
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 | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".