Investigating Users’ Attitudes Toward Automated Smartwatch Cardiac Arrest Detection: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a leading cause of mortality in the developed world. Timely detection of cardiac arrest and prompt activation of emergency medical services (EMS) are essential, yet challenging. Automated cardiac arrest detection using sensor signals from smartwatches has the potential to shorten the interval between cardiac arrest and activation of EMS, thereby increasing the likelihood of survival. Objective: This cross-sectional survey study aims to investigate users' perspectives on aspects of continuous monitoring such as privacy and data protection, as well as other implications, and to collect insights into their attitudes toward the technology. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey in the Netherlands among 2 groups of potential users of automated cardiac arrest technology: consumers who already own a smartwatch and patients at risk of cardiac arrest. Surveys primarily consisted of closed-ended questions with some additional open-ended questions to provide supplementary insight. The quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and a content analysis of the open-ended questions was conducted. Results: In the consumer group (n=1005), 90.2% (n=906; 95% CI 88.1%-91.9%) of participants expressed an interest in the technology, and 89% (n=1196; 95% CI 87.3%-90.7%) of the patient group (n=1344) showed interest. More than 75% (consumer group: n= 756; patient group: n=1004) of the participants in both groups indicated they were willing to use the technology. The main concerns raised by participants regarding the technology included privacy, data protection, reliability, and accessibility. Conclusions: The vast majority of potential users expressed a strong interest in and positive attitude toward automated cardiac arrest detection using smartwatch technology. However, a number of concerns were identified, which should be addressed in the development and implementation process to optimize acceptance and effectiveness of the 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".