skip to main content
research-article

Physiotherapy Over a Distance: The Use of Wearable Technology for Video Consultations in Hospital Settings

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 September 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Wearable technologies offer potential in supporting assessment of lower limb movements in video consultations, which otherwise are challenging to assess. Yet there remains a limited understanding of how such technologies can be used to improve video consultations in a hospital setting and how they contribute to the clinician-patient interactions over a distance. In this article, we report on the findings of the field evaluation of a wearable technology—SoPhy. SoPhy consists of a pair of sensor embedded socks that capture the lower limb movements of a patient and a web-interface to visualise these movements for the remote physiotherapist. Our study demonstrates that SoPhy helped the physiotherapist in identifying the subtle differences in patients’ movements across all six phases of a consultation. SoPhy increased the confidence of the physiotherapist and guided more accurate assessment of the patients. SoPhy visualisation enhanced the overall clinician-patient communication and offered a better understanding of the therapy goals to the patients. Using the characteristics of the visualisations, patients were able to plan specific goals. We discuss how SoPhy helped in addressing challenges in video consultations experienced by a physiotherapist, and beyond that, how it enabled collective reflection between therapist and patient.

References

  1. D. Aggarwal, R. Garnett, B. Ploderer, F. Vetere, P. Eadie, and B. J. Davidson. 2015. Understanding video-based parent training intervention for children with autism. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, (OzCHI’15). ACM, New York, NY, 10--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. Aggarwal, B. Ploderer, F. Vetere, M. Bradford, and T. Hoang. 2016. Doctor, can you see my squats?: Understanding bodily communication in video consultations for physiotherapy. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’16). ACM, 1197--1208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. Aggarwal, W. Zhang, T. Hoang, B. Ploderer, F. Vetere, and M. Bradford. 2017. SoPhy: A wearable technology for lower limb assessment in video consultations of physiotherapy. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17), 3916--3928.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Agmon, C. K. Perry, E. Phelan, G. Demiris, and H. Q. Nguyen. 2011. A pilot study of Wii Fit exergames to improve balance in older adults. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther 34, 161--167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. S. Ananthanarayan, M. Sheh, A. Chien, H. Profita, and K. Siek. 2013. Pt Viz: Towards a wearable device for visualizing knee rehabilitation exercises. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13). ACM, New York, NY, 1247--1250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. T. Attridge. 2008. Fitness Trainer Essentials: For the Personal Trainer. Pearson Education Australia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Ayoade and L. Baillie. 2014. A novel knee rehabilitation system for the home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 2521--2530.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Blandford, E. Berndt, K. Catchpole, D. Furniss, A. Mayer, H. Mentis, A. A. O'Kane, T. Owen, A. Rajkomar, and R. Randell. 2015. Strategies for conducting situated studies of technology use in hospitals. Cognition, Technology 8 Work 17, 4 (2015), 489--502.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A. Blandford. 2018. Lessons from working with researchers and practitioners in healthcare. ACM Interactions (2018), 72--75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. J. Bongers, S. Smith, V. Donker, M. Pickrell, R. Hall, and S. Lie. 2014. Interactive Infrastructures: Physical rehabilitation modules for pervasive healthcare technology. In Pervasive Health, Human--Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London, 229--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. V. Braun and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol 3, 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. J. Bulik. 2008. Human factors in primary care telemedicine encounters. J. Telemed. Telecare 14, 169--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. P. S. Byrne and B. E. Long. 1976. Doctors Talking to Patients. A Study of the Verbal Behaviour of General Practitioners Consulting in their Surgeries. Her Majestys Stationery Office.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. G. A. Chalkiadis. 2001. Management of chronic pain in children. Med. J. Aust. 175, 476--479.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Y. Chen, V. Ngo, S. Harrison, and V. Duong. 2011. Unpacking exam-room computing: Negotiating computer-use in patient-physician interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11), 3343--3352.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. E. K. Choe, B. Lee, T. O. Andersen, L. Wilcox, and G. Fitzpatrick. 2018. Harnessing the power of patient-generated data. IEEE Pervasive Computing/IEEE Computer Society and IEEE Communications Society 17, 2 (2018), 50--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Cho and A. Trent. 2006. Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qual. Res 6, 319--340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. L. Ciolfi. 2004. Situating “Place” in Interaction Design: Enhancing the User Experience in Interactive Environments. Dept. of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Limerick, Ireland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. G. Demiris, N. Charness, E. Krupinski, D. Ben-Arieh, K. Washington, J. Wu, and B. Farberow. 2010. The role of human factors in telehealth. Telemed. J. E. Health 16, 446--453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. S. Dods, J. Freyne, L. Alem, S. Nepal, J. Li, and J. Jang-Jaccard. 2012. Telehealth Potential and Broadband Implications for Remote Australia. CSIRO ICT Centre.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Doyle, C. Bailey, B. Dromey, and C. N. Scanaill. 2010. BASE—An interactive technology solution to deliver balance and strength exercises to older adults. In Proceedings of the 4th International ICST Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. G. Ekeland, A. Bowes, and S. Flottorp. 2010. Effectiveness of telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. Int. J. Med. Inform 79, 736--771.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. J.-F. Esculier, J. Vaudrin, P. Bériault, K. Gagnon, and L. E. Tremblay. 2012. Home-based balance training programme using wii fit with balance board for Parkinson's disease: A pilot study. J. Rehabil. Med 44, 144--150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. G. Fitzpatrick and G. Ellingsen. 2013. A review of 25 years of CSCW research in healthcare: Contributions, challenges and future agendas. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 22, 609--665.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. G. Fryback and J. R. Thornbury. 1991. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med. Decis. Making 11, 88--94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. C. Heath. 1986. Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C. Heath. 2002. Demonstrative suffering: The gestural (Re)embodiment of symptoms. J. Commun 52, 3 (2002), 597--616.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. C. Heath and P. Luff. 1992. Media space and communicative asymmetries: Preliminary observations of video-mediated interaction. Hum.--Comput. Interact. 7, 315--346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. K. J. Heffernan, F. Vetere, and S. Chang. 2016. You put what, where? Hobbyist use of insertable devices. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1798--1809. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858392Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. T. N. Hoang, M. Reinoso, F. Vetere, and E. Tanin. 2016. Onebody: Remote posture guidance system using first person view in virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI’16). ACM, New York, NY, 25 1--25:10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J.-D. Huang. 2011. Kinerehab: A Kinect-based system for physical rehabilitation: A pilot study for young adults with motor disabilities. In Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’11). ACM, New York, NY, 319--320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. S. Y. Kim. 2013. Efficacy versus effectiveness. Korean J. Fam. Med. 34, 227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. P. Kirk, M. Grierson, R. Bodak, N. Ward, F. Brander, K. Kelly, N. Newman, and L. Stewart. 2016. Motivating stroke rehabilitation through music: A feasibility study using digital musical instruments in the home. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). ACM, New York, NY, 1781--1785.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. A. W. K. Lam, D. Varona-Marin, Y. Li, M. Fergenbaum, and D. Kulić. 2016. Automated rehabilitation system: Movement measurement and feedback for patients and physiotherapists in the rehabilitation clinic. Hum.--Comput. Interact. 31, 294--334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. S. B. Larsen and J. E. Bardram. 2008. Competence articulation: Alignment of competences and responsibilities in synchronous telemedical collaboration. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08), 553--562.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. M. K. Lee, N. Fruchter, and L. Dabbish. 2015. Making decisions from a distance: The impact of technological mediation on riskiness and dehumanization. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8 Social Computing (CSCW’15). ACM, New York, NY, 1576--1589.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham. 2006. New directions in goal-setting theory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15, 265--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. S. Mann. 1996. Smart clothing: The shift to wearable computing. In Communications of the ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. R. McGough, K. Paterson, E. J. Bradshaw, A. L. Bryant, and R. A. Clark. 2012. Improving lower limb weight distribution asymmetry during the squat using Nintendo Wii balance boards and real-time feedback. J. Strength Condition. Res. 26, 1 (2012), 47--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. H. M. Mentis, A. Rahim, and P. Theodore. 2016. Crafting the image in surgical telemedicine. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 8 Social Computing (CSCW’16). ACM, New York, NY, 744--755.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. H. M. Mentis, R. Shewbridge, S. Powell, P. Fishman, and L. Shulman. 2015. Being seen: Co-interpreting parkinson's patient's movement ability in deep brain stimulation programming. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15). ACM, New York, NY, 511--520.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. E. A. Miller. 2011. The continuing need to investigate the nature and content of teleconsultation communication using interaction analysis techniques. J. Telemed. Telecare 17, 55--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. C. Morrison, P. Culmer, H. Mentis, and T. Pincus. 2016. Vision-based body tracking: Turning Kinect into a clinical tool. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol 11, 516--520.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. B. Najafi, G. Grewal, S. Parvaneh, R. A. Menzies, T. K. Talal, and D. G. Armstrong. 2013. Smartsox—A smart textile to prevent diabetic foot amputation. Retrieved from https://diabeticfootonline.com/2013/11/18/smartsox-asmart-textile-to-prevent-diabetic-foot-amputation/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. J. W. Newbold, N. Bianchi-Berthouze, N. E. Gold, A. TajaduraJiménez, and A. C. D. C. Williams. 2016. Musically informed sonification for chronic pain rehabilitation: Facilitating progress and avoiding over-doing. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 5698--5703. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858302Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. K. O'Hara, C. Morrison, A. Sellen, N. Bianchi-Berthouze, and C. Craig. 2016. Body Tracking in Healthcare. Synthesis Lectures on Assistive, Rehabilitative, and Health-Preserving Technologies 5, 1--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. G. Olson and J. Olson. 2000. Distance matters. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 15, 139--178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. J. S. Olson and G. M. Olson. 2013. Working Together Apart: Collaboration over the Internet. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 6, 1--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. E. Papi, G. M. Murtagh, and A. H. McGregor. 2016. Wearable technologies in osteoarthritis: A qualitative study of clinicians’ preferences. BMJ Open 6, 1 e009544. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009544Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. B. Ploderer, J. Fong, A. Withana, M. Klaic, S. Nair, V. Crocher, F. Vetere, and S. Nanayakkara. 2016. ArmSleeve: A patient monitoring system to support occupational therapists in stroke rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’16). ACM, New York, NY, 700--711.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. C. C. Presson and D. R. Montello. 1994. Updating after rotational and translational body movements: coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception 23, 1447--1455.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. S. Rosenberg, E. Rosario, J. Yeung, D. Catolico, R. Daniel, R. Lovell, N. Fullmer, E. Pearson, and R. Tang. 2016. Evaluation of a wearable “smart socks” gait monitoring system for improving rehabilitation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 97, e77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. M. R. Sarnow, B. I. Rosenblum, A. Veves, J. S. Chrzan, J. M. Giurini, and G. M. Habesrshaw. 1994. In-shoe foot pressure measurements in diabetic patients with at-risk feet and in healthy subjects. Diabetes Care 17, 9 (1994), 1002--1006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. A. Singh, S. Piana, D. Pollarolo, G. Volpe, G. Varni, A. Tajadura-Jiménez, A. C. Williams, A. Camurri, and N. Bianchi-Berthouze. 2016. Go-with-the-flow: Tracking, analysis and sonification of movement and breathing to build confidence in activity despite chronic pain. Hum.--Comput. Interact. 31, 335--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. S. L. Star and J. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations,” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals on Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies Sci. 19, 387--420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. D. R. Stevenson. 2011. Tertiary-level telehealth: A media space application. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 20, 61--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. M. A. Stewart. 1995. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A review. CMAJ 152, 1423--1433.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. A. Tajadura-Jiménez, M. Basia, O. Deroy, M. Fairhurst, N. Marquardt, and N. Bianchi-Berthouze. 2015. As light as your footsteps: Altering walking sounds to change perceived body weight, emotional state and gait. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2943--2952. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2702374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. R. Tang, X.-D. Yang, S. Bateman, J. Jorge, and A. Tang. 2015. [email protected]: Exploring visual guidance and feedback techniques for physiotherapy exercises. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4123--4132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. G. Tao, P. S. Archambault, and M. F. Levin. 2013. Evaluation of Kinect skeletal tracking in a virtual reality rehabilitation system for upper limb hemiparesis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR’13). 164--165.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. C. J. Winstein, P. S. Pohl, and R. Lewthwaite. 1994. Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: Support for the guidance hypothesis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 65, 316--323.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Physiotherapy Over a Distance: The Use of Wearable Technology for Video Consultations in Hospital Settings

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare
        ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare  Volume 1, Issue 4
        Special Issue on Wearable Technologies for Smart Health: Part 1
        October 2020
        184 pages
        ISSN:2691-1957
        EISSN:2637-8051
        DOI:10.1145/3427421
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 30 September 2020
        • Online AM: 7 May 2020
        • Accepted: 1 February 2020
        • Revised: 1 January 2020
        • Received: 1 August 2019
        Published in health Volume 1, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!