4.6 Article

What Features and Functions Are Desired in Telemedical Services Targeted at Polish Older Adults Delivered by Wearable Medical Devices?-Pre-COVID-19 Flashback

期刊

SENSORS
卷 20, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s20185181

关键词

wearable; gerontechnology; health monitoring system; assisted living technologies; telemedical services

资金

  1. National Center for Research and Development in Poland [TANGO1/270395/NCBR/2015]
  2. AGH University of Science and Technology in 2020 [16.16.120.773]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emerging wearable medical devices open up new opportunities for the provision of health services and promise to accelerate the development of novel telemedical services. The main objective of this study was to investigate the desirable features and applications of telemedical services for the Polish older adults delivered by wearable medical devices. The questionnaire study was conducted among 146 adult volunteers in two cohorts (C.1: <65 years vs. C.2: >= 65 years). The analysis was based on qualitative research and descriptive statistics. Comparisons were performed by Pearson's chi-squared test. The questionnaire, which was divided into three parts (1-socio-demographic data, needs, and behaviors; 2-health status; 3-telemedicine service awareness and device concept study), consisted of 37 open, semi-open, or closed questions. Two cohorts were analyzed (C.1:n= 77; mean age = 32 vs. C.2:n= 69; mean age = 74). The performed survey showed that the majority of respondents were unaware of the telemedical services (56.8%). A total of 62.3% of C.1 and 34.8% of C.2 declared their understanding of telemedical services. The 10.3% of correct explanations regarding telemedical service were found among all study participants. The most desirable feature was the detection of life-threatening and health-threatening situations (65.2% vs. 66.2%). The findings suggest a lack of awareness of telemedical services and the opportunities offered by wearable telemedical devices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据