Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 8, 2025
Setup of Consumer Wearable Devices for Exposure and Health Monitoring in Population Studies
Published on: February 3, 2023
Preferences and User Experiences of Wearable Devices in Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Mixed-Methods Synthesis
Shobi Sivathamboo1, Duong Nhu1, Loretta Piccenna1
1From the Department of Neuroscience (S.S., L.P., A.Y., A.A.-B., S.V., M.T., T.J.O.B., N.A.L., P.K.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Department of Neurology (S.S., L.P., A.Y., M.T., T.J.O.B., P.K.), Alfred Health, Melbourne; Department of Medicine (S.S., L.P., A.Y., M.T., T.J.O.B., P.K.), The Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne; Department of Neurology (S.S., M.T., T.J.O.B., P.K.), The Royal Melbourne Hospital; Department of Data Science and AI (D.N., L.K.), Faculty of Information Technology, and Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering (L.W.Y., W.C.), Monash University, Clayton; and Alfred Health (Allied Health Directorate) (N.A.L.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Background And Objectives:
To examine the preferences and user experiences of people with epilepsy and caregivers regarding automated wearable seizure detection devices.
Methods:
We performed a mixed-methods systematic review. We searched electronic databases for original peer-reviewed publications between January 1, 2000, and May 26, 2021. Key search terms included "epilepsy," "seizure," "wearable," and "non-invasive." We performed a descriptive and qualitative thematic analysis of the studies included according to the technology acceptance model. Full texts of the discussion sections were further analyzed to identify word frequency and word mapping.
Results:
Twenty-two observational studies were identified. Collectively, they comprised responses from 3,299 participants including patients with epilepsy, caregivers, and healthcare workers. Sixteen studies examined user preferences, 5 examined user experiences, and 1 examined both experiences and preferences. Important preferences for wearables included improving care, cost, accuracy, and design. Patients desired real-time detection with a latency of ≤15 minutes from seizure occurrence, along with high sensitivity (≥90%) and low false alarm rates. Device-related costs were a major factor for device acceptance, where device costs of <$300 USD and a monthly subscription fee of <$20 USD were preferred. Despite being a major driver of wearable-based technologies, sudden unexpected death in epilepsy was rarely discussed. Among studies evaluating user experiences, there was a greater acceptance toward wristwatches. Thematic coding analysis showed that attitudes toward device use and perceived usefulness were reported consistently. Word mapping identified "specificity," "cost," and "battery" as key single terms and "battery life," "insurance coverage," "prediction/detection quality," and the effect of devices on "daily life" as key bigrams.
Discussion:
User acceptance of wearable technology for seizure detection was strongly influenced by accuracy, design, comfort, and cost. Our findings emphasize the need for standardized and validated tools to comprehensively examine preferences and user experiences of wearable devices in this population using the themes identified in this study. Greater efforts to incorporate perspectives and user experiences in developing wearables for seizure detection, particularly in community-based settings, are needed.
Trial Registration Information:
PROSPERO Registration CRD42020193565.
