Evaluating Users’ Experiences of a Child Multimodal Wearable Device: Mixed Methods Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Wearable devices permit the continuous, unobtrusive collection of data from children in their natural environments and can transform our understanding of child development. Although the use of wearable devices has begun to emerge in research involving children, few studies have considered families’ experiences and perspectives of participating in research of this kind. Objective Through a mixed methods approach, we assessed parents’ and children’s experiences of using a new wearable device in the home environment. The wearable device was designed specifically for use with infants and young children, and it integrates audio, electrocardiogram, and motion sensors. Methods In study 1, semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 42 parents of children aged 1 month to 9.5 years who completed 2 day-long recordings using the device, which the children wore on a specially designed shirt. In study 2, a total of 110 parents of children aged 2 months to 5.5 years responded to a questionnaire assessing their experience of completing 3 day-long device recordings in the home. Guided by the Digital Health Checklist, we assessed parental responses from both studies in relation to the following three key domains: (1) access and usability, (2) privacy, and (3) risks and benefits. Results In study 1, most parents viewed the device as easy to use and safe and remote visits as convenient. Parents’ views on privacy related to the audio recordings were more varied. The use of machine learning algorithms (vs human annotators) in the analysis of the audio data, the ability to stop recordings at any time, and the view that the recordings reflected ordinary family life were some reasons cited by parents who expressed minimal, if any, privacy concerns. Varied risks and benefits were also reported, including perceived child comfort or discomfort, the need to adjust routines to accommodate the study, the understanding gained from the study procedures, and the parent’s and child’s enjoyment of study participation. In study 2, parents’ ratings on 5 close-ended items yielded a similar pattern of findings. Compared with a “neutral” rating, parents were significantly more likely to agree that (1) device instructions were helpful and clear (t109=−45.98; P<.001), (2) they felt comfortable putting the device on their child (t109=−22.22; P<.001), and (3) they felt their child was safe while wearing the device (t109=−34.48; P<.001). They were also less likely to worry about the audio recordings gathered by the device (t108=6.14; P<.001), whereas parents’ rating of the burden of the study procedures did not differ significantly from a “neutral” rating (t109=−0.16; P=.87). Conclusions On the basis of parents’ feedback, several concrete changes can be implemented to improve this new wearable platform and, ultimately, parents’ and children’s experiences of using child wearable devices in the home setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".