Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 78, Issue 3, pp 3365–3394 | Cite as

Design and evaluation of a digital wearable ring and a smartphone application to help monitor and manage the effects of Raynaud’s phenomenon

  • Konstantinos Partheniadis
  • Modestos StavrakisEmail author
Article
  • 185 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents the iterative research, design and evaluation phases of a digital wearable health system for monitoring, managing and possibly assisting in preventing the effects of a chronic disease called Raynaud’s Phenomenon (RP). The wearable health system is composed of three main parts, a physical product of a smart ring, the digital infrastructure of the physical computing subsystem (hardware and software) and an accompanying smartphone application. A set of design requirements that best describe the functionality and the characteristics of wearable health systems have been selected to derive a thorough study and evaluate the design prototype. We present these along with a set of guidelines for designing wearable health systems (device products and software at the application level) with focus on usability and user experience. The purpose is to evaluate, the prototype which is based on multiple sensor inputs that acquire simultaneously several biomedical and environmental signals, the interaction techniques used and the feedback mechanisms of the smart ring and the accompanying smartphone application for logging and monitoring the progress of RP.

Keywords

Raynaud’s phenomenon Wearable health systems Mhealth Smart ring Smartphone application Evaluation Design requirements 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Awami M, Schillinger M, Gschwandtner ME, Maca T, Haumer M, Minar E (2001) Low level laser treatment of primary and secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon. VasaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Awami S, Maca T et al (2004) Low level laser therapy for treatment of primary and secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon. Vasa 33:25–29.  https://doi.org/10.1024/0301-1526.33.1.25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Muhtadi J, Shahzad B, Saleem K, et al (2017) Cybersecurity and privacy issues for socially integrated mobile healthcare applications operating in a multi-cloud environment Health Informatics J 1460458217706184. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458217706184
  4. 4.
    Anderson ME, Moore TL, Lunt M, Herrick AL (2007) The “distal-dorsal difference”: a thermographic parameter by which to differentiate between primary and secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon. Rheumatology 46:533–538.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kel330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrews J (1997) Maurice R Raynaud and his protean disease. J Med Biogr 5:46–50.  https://doi.org/10.1177/096777209700500110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benyon D (2010) Designing interactive systems: a comprehensive guide to HCI and interaction design, 2nd edn. Pearson education, Canada, Harlow, England; New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1997) Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bichard J-A, Coleman R, Langdon P (2007) Does my stigma look big in this? Considering acceptability and desirability in the inclusive Design of Technology Products. In: Universal Acess in human computer interaction. Coping with Diversity. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 622–631Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Block JA, Sequeira W (2001) Raynaud’s phenomenon. Lancet 357:2042–2048.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)05118-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodine K, Gemperle F (2003) Effects of functionality on perceived comfort of wearables. In: proceedings of the seventh IEEE international symposium on wearable computers (ISWC’03). Pp 17–00Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown KM, Middaugh SJ, Haythornthwaite JA, Bielory L (2001) The effects of stress, anxiety, and outdoor temperature on the frequency and severity of Raynaud’s attacks: the Raynaud’s treatment study. J Behav Med 24:137–153.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010758530555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan M, Estève D, Fourniols J-Y et al (2012) Smart wearable systems: current status and future challenges. Artif Intell Med 56:137–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2012.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chatterjee S, Price A Healthy living with persuasive technologies: framework, issues, and challenges. doi: https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2859
  14. 14.
    Chiauzz E, Rodarte C, DasMahapatra P (2017) Patient-centered activity monitoring in the self-management of chronic health conditions. BMC Med 13:77–77.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0319-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cho G (2010) Smart clothing: technology and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooper A (2014) About face: the essentials of interaction design, 4th edition, 4th edn. John Wiley and Sons, Indianapolis, INGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–340.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dinsdale G, Herrick AL (2014) Vascular diagnostics for Raynaud’s phenomenon. J Vasc Diagn Interv 2:127–139.  https://doi.org/10.2147/JVD.S52943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dow S, MacIntyre B, Lee J et al (2005) Wizard of Oz support throughout an iterative design process. IEEE Pervasive Comput 4:18–26.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2005.93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dunne LE, Profita H, Zeagler C et al (2014) The social comfort of wearable technology and gestural interaction. In: 2014 36th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society. Pp 4159–4162Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Embr Wave (2018) A thermostat for your body. In: Kickstarter https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/embrwave/embr-wave-a-thermostat-for-your-body. Accessed 13 Mar 2018
  22. 22.
    Farrington C (2016) Wearable technologies and stigma in diabetes: the role of medical aesthetics. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4:566.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(16)00075-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fensli R, Boisen E (2008) Human factors affecting the Patient’s acceptance of wireless biomedical sensors. In: Biomedical engineering systems and technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 402–412Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Finstad K (2006) The system usability scale and non-native English speakers. J Usability Stud 1:185–188Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gemperle F, Kasabach C, Stivoric J et al (1998) Design for wearability. In: digest of papers. Second international symposium on wearable computers (cat. No.98EX215). Pp 116–122Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goodwin K (2009) Designing for the digital age: how to create human-centered products and services, annotated edition. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gothelf J, Seiden J (2013) Lean UX: applying lean principles to improve user experience. O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Herrick AL (2012) The pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of Raynaud phenomenon. Nat Rev Rheumatol 8:469–479.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2012.96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hirschl M, Katzenschlager R, Ammer K et al (2002) Double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled low level laser therapy study in patients with primary Raynaud’s phenomenon. Vasa 31:91–94.  https://doi.org/10.1024/0301-1526.31.2.91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hirschl M, Katzenschlager R, Francesconi C, Kundi M (2004) Low level laser therapy in primary Raynaud’s phenomenon--results of a placebo controlled, double blind intervention study. J Rheumatol 31:2408–2412Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hirschl M, Hirschl K, Lenz M et al (2006) Transition from primary Raynaud’s phenomenon to secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon identified by diagnosis of an associated disease: results of ten years of prospective surveillance. Arthritis Rheum 54:1974–1981.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.21912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Holtzblatt K, Wendell JB, Wood S (2004) Rapid contextual design: a how-to guide to key techniques for user-centered design. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jean J (2016) Portable Raynaud Monitoring Device. https://hackaday.io/project/17998-portable-raynaud-monitoring-device
  34. 34.
    Karahanoğlu A, Erbuğ Ç (2011) Perceived qualities of smart wearables: determinants of user acceptance. In: proceedings of the 2011 conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 26:1–26:8Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Karavidas MK, Tsai P-S, Yucha C et al (2006) Thermal biofeedback for primary Raynaud’s phenomenon: a review of the literature. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 31:203–216.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-006-9018-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim W-S, Calderhead RG (2011) Is light-emitting diode phototherapy (LED-LLLT) really effective? Laser Ther 20:205–215.  https://doi.org/10.5978/ISLSM.20.205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim YW, Yoon SH, Hwangbo H, Ji YG (2017) Development of a user experience evaluation framework for wearable devices. In: Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Applications, Services and Contexts. Springer, Cham, pp 53–67Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kirk S (2014) The wearables revolution: is standardization a help or a hindrance?: mainstream technology or just a passing phase? IEEE Consum Electron Mag 3:45–50.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2014.2345996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Klippel JH (1991) Raynaud’s phenomenon: the French tricolor. Arch Intern Med 151:2389–2393.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1991.00400120035006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kurley M, Gore V, Noonan L (2016) Heated glove and method of controlling the heating of a gloveGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Li H, Wu J, Gao Y, Shi Y (2016) Examining individuals’ adoption of healthcare wearable devices: an empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. Int J Med Inf 88:8–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li X, Dunn J, Salins D et al (2017) Digital health: tracking Physiomes and activity using wearable biosensors reveals useful health-related information. PLoS Biol 15:e2001402.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lupton D (2013) The digitally engaged patient: self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Soc Theory Health 11:256–270.  https://doi.org/10.1057/sth.2013.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lymberis A (2003) Smart wearables for remote health monitoring, from prevention to rehabilitation: current R D, future challenges. 4th Int IEEE EMBS Spec Topic Conf Inform Technol Appl Biomed 2003. IEEE: 272–275Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Marcus S, Weiner SR, Suzuki SM, Kwan L (1991) Raynaud’s syndrome. Postgrad Med 89:171–187.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.1991.11700870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Maricq HR, Valter I, Maricq JG (1998) An objective method to estimate the severity of Raynaud phenomenon: digital blood pressure response to cooling. Vasc Med 3:109–113.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1358836X9800300204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Merkel PA, Herlyn K, Martin RW et al (2002) Measuring disease activity and functional status in patients with scleroderma and Raynaud’s phenomenon: outcome measures for RP in SSc. Arthritis Rheum 46:2410–2420.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.10486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    NHLBI (2009) Heart & Vascular Diseases: Raynaud’s: what is Raynaud’s?Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering, 1st ed. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Norman DA, Draper SW (1986) User centered system design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Oumnia K (2017) Semelle chauffante pour chaussureGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pantelopoulos A, Bourbakis NG (2010) A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring and prognosis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 40:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2009.2032660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Parette P, Scherer M (2004) Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ Train Dev Disabil 39:217–226.  https://doi.org/10.2307/23880164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Park S, Jayaraman S (2003) Enhancing the quality of life through wearable technology. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 22:41–48.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MEMB.2003.1213625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Patel S, Park H, Bonato P et al (2012) A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J Neuro Eng Rehabil 9:21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-9-21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG (2015) Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. Jama 313:459–459.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.14781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Paul G, Irvine J (2014) Privacy implications of wearable health devices. In: proceedings of the 7th international conference on security of information and networks. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 117:117–117:121Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Piwek L, Ellis DA, Andrews S, Joinson A (2016) The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers. PLoS Med 13:e1001953–e1001953.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Preece J, Sharp H, Rogers Y (2015) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction, 4 edition. WileyGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rantakari J, Inget V, Colley A, Häkkilä J (2016) Charting design preferences on wellness wearables. In: Proceedings of the 7th augmented human international conference 2016 on - AH’16. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rodgers M (2013) Primary Raynaud’s phenomenon. N Engl J Med 368:1344–1344.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMicm1209600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rubin J, Chisnell D, Spool J (2008) Handbook of usability testing: how to plan, design, and conduct effective tests, 2nd edn. Wiley, Indianapolis, INGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ruiz A (2012) Is low-level laser therapy an effective treatment for patients with primary Raynaud’s phenomenon?Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schnall R, Higgins T, Brown W et al (2015) Trust, perceived risk, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as factors related to mHealth technology use. Stud Health Technol Inform 216:467–471Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schwirtz A (2002) The comfort assessment of wearable computers. In: proceedings of the 6th IEEE international symposium on wearable computers. IEEE computer society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 65–Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Silva SED (2017) Examining developments and applications of wearable devices in modern society, 1st edn. IGI Global, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Smith MJ, Shames S, Gibson M, Cohen-Tanugi D (2015) Methods and apparatuses for manipulating temperatureGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stavrakis M (2009) Interaction for design: a theoretical framework for contextual collaboration. Ph. D thesis, University of the AegeanGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Taket A, White L (2000) Partnership and participation: decision-making in the multiagency setting, 1st ed. WileyGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Vredenburg K, Mao J-Y, Smith PW, Carey T (2002) A survey of user-centered design practice. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 471–478Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wechsung I (2014) An evaluation framework for multimodal interaction. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wigley FM (2002) Raynaud’s phenomenon. N Engl J Med 347:1001–1008.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp013013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wigley FM, Wise RA, Schwartz PD et al (2005) Ambulatory surface skin temperature monitorGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zhang Y, Qiu M, Tsai C-W et al (2017) Health-CPS: healthcare cyber-physical system assisted by cloud and big data. IEEE Syst J 11:88–95.  https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2015.2460747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Product & Systems Design EngineeringUniversity of the AegeanSyrosGreece

Personalised recommendations