Physical Therapists’ Acceptance of a Wearable, Fabric-Based Sensor System (Motion Tape) for Use in Clinical Practice: Qualitative Focus Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a costly global health condition that affects individuals of all ages and genders. Physical therapy (PT) is a commonly used and effective intervention for the management of LBP and incorporates movement assessment and therapeutic exercise. A newly developed wearable, fabric-based sensor system, Motion Tape, uses novel sensing and data modeling to measure lumbar spine movements unobtrusively and thus offers potential benefits when used in conjunction with PT. However, physical therapists' acceptance of Motion Tape remains unexplored. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this research study was to evaluate physical therapists' acceptance of Motion Tape to be used for the management of LBP. The secondary aim was to explore physical therapists' recommendations for future device development. METHODS: Licensed physical therapists from the American Physical Therapy Association Academy of Leadership Technology Special Interest Group participated in this study. Overall, 2 focus groups (FGs; N=8) were conducted, in which participants were presented with Motion Tape samples and examples of app data output on a poster. Informed by the Technology Acceptance Model, we conducted semistructured FGs and explored the wearability, usefulness, and ease of use of and suggestions for improvements in Motion Tape for PT management of LBP. FG data were transcribed and analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Regarding wearability, participants perceived that Motion Tape would be able to adhere for several days, with some variability owing to external factors. Feedback was positive for the low-profile and universal fit, but discomfort owing to wires and potential friction with clothing was of concern. Other concerns included difficulty with self-application and potential skin sensitivity. Regarding usefulness, participants expressed that Motion Tape would enhance the efficiency and specificity of assessments and treatment. Regarding ease of use, participants stated that the app would be easy, but data management and challenges with interpretation were of concern. Physical therapists provided several recommendations for future design improvements including having a wireless system or removable wires, customizable sizes for the tape, and output including range of motion data and summary graphs and adding app features that consider patient input and context. CONCLUSIONS: Several themes related to Motion Tape's wearability, usefulness, and ease of use were identified. Overall, physical therapists expressed acceptance of Motion Tape's potential for assessing and monitoring low back posture and movement, both within and outside clinical settings. Participants expressed that Motion Tape would be a valuable tool for the personalized treatment of LBP but highlighted several future improvements needed for Motion Tape to be used in practice.
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 | 0.036 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".