4.5 Article

Wearable activity trackers for nurses' health: A qualitative acceptability study

Journal

NURSING OPEN
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1884

Keywords

nurses' health; simulation; technology acceptance; wearable activity trackers

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the study was to assess the practical, social, and ethical acceptability of using a POLAR(R) H7 chest-strap wearable device to influence health behaviors among pre-registered nurses. The study involved a simulated test of use and qualitative methods such as focus groups and interviews. The findings showed that while nurses found the use of chest-strap devices acceptable for monitoring their own health, they emphasized the importance of inclusive and supportive technology use and cautioned against misuse of data.
Aim: To assess the practical, social and ethical acceptability of the use of a POLAR (R) H7 chest-strap wearable device to influence health behaviours among pre-registered nurses.Design: Qualitative acceptability study including a simulated test of use reported using COREQ guidelines.Methods: Pre-registered nurses simulated nine nursing tasks while wearing the chest strap in a clinical simulation facility in a Scottish university in 2016. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess technology acceptance with participants who did and did not participate in the simulated nursing tasks. Focus groups and interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically guided by a theoretical model of technology acceptance.Results: Pre-registered nurses thought the use of chest-strap devices to monitor their own health in real-time was acceptable. However, participants shared that it was important that the use of technology was inclusive and supportive of nurses' health and cautioned against misuse of data from wearable devices for individual performance management or stigmatisation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available