4.6 Review

Occupational Stress Monitoring Using Biomarkers and Smartwatches: A Systematic Review

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 22, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22176633

Keywords

pulse wearable; physicochemical parameters; stress measurement; Internet of Things

Funding

  1. FAPERGS [06/2020]
  2. Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil [20/2551-0000262-4]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article systematically reviews scientific publications on wrist wearables for identifying stress levels, highlighting the use of technologies like heart rate variability and cortisol analysis as main biomarkers. Stress assessments still rely on standardized questionnaires, but developing a wrist wearable for stress identification using physiological and chemical sensors is challenging yet possible.
This article presents a systematic review of the literature concerning scientific publications on wrist wearables that can help to identify stress levels. The study is part of a research project aimed at modeling a stress surveillance system and providing coping recommendations. The investigation followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In total, 38 articles were selected for full reading, and 10 articles were selected owing to their alignment with the study proposal. The types of technologies used in the research stand out amongst our main results after analyzing the articles. It is noteworthy that stress assessments are still based on standardized questionnaires, completed by the participants. The main biomarkers collected by the devices used in the selected works included: heart rate variation, cortisol analysis, skin conductance, body temperature, and blood volume at the wrist. This study concludes that developing a wrist wearable for stress identification using physiological and chemical sensors is challenging but possible and applicable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available