skip to main content
research-article

Transformation in Healthcare by Wearable Devices for Diagnostics and Guidance of Treatment

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 March 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Wearable devices offer a promise of immense impact on worldwide global health by offering the potential for non-invasive, constantly vigilant, and low-cost monitoring of individual condition and fundamental advances in guiding healthcare. The urgency of this objective for its individual and societal benefits will attract an expanding community of researchers from backgrounds in nearly every field of computing. This article describes the unprecedented benefits and opportunities for computing research in wearable devices and the multidisciplinary challenges that have not been encountered individually or combined together in previous research. This article is focused on providing guidance to the new community of healthcare in computing researchers who will both create a new field and forge transformative solutions for healthcare delivery to a worldwide population.

References

  1. Paddy M. Barrett, Ravi Komatiredd, Sharon Haaser, Sarah Topol, Judith Sheard, Jackie Encinas, Angela J. Fought, and Eric J. Topol. 2013. Comparison of 24-hour Holter monitoring with 14-day novel adhesive patch electrocardiographic monitoring. American Journal of Medicine 127, 1 (2013), 95.e11--95.e9.5e17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Helmut Baumgartner, Judy Hung, Javier Bermejo, John B. Chambers, Thor Edvardsen, Steven Goldstein, Patrizio Lancellotti, Melissa LeFevre, Fletcher Miller, and Catherine M. Otto. 2017. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: A focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. European Heart Journal: Cardiovascular Imaging 18, 3 (2017), 254--275Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. M. Bland and D. G. Altman. 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1 (8476), 307--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. J. M. Bland and D. G. Altman. 1999. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 8 (1999), 135--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Maxime Cannesson and Aman Mahajan. 2017. Anesthesiology and new models of perioperative care: What will help move the needle? Anesthesia 8 Analgesia 124, 5 (2017), 1392--1393.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. I. G. Cohen and M. M. Mello. 2018. HIPAA and protecting health information in the 21st century. Journal of the American Medical Association 320, 3 (2018), 231--232. DOI:10.1001/jama.2018.5630Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Adnan Darwiche. 2018. Human-level intelligence or animal-like abilities? Communications of the ACM 61, 10 (2018), 56--67. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3271625Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. T. J. Daskivich, J. Houman, M. Lopez, M. Luu, P. Fleshner, K. Zaghiyan, S. Cunneen et al. 2019. Association of wearable activity monitors with assessment of daily ambulation and length of stay among patients undergoing major surgery. Journal of the American Medical Association Network Open 2, 2 (2019), e187673.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Arash Gharehbaghi, Per Ask, Eva Nylander, Birgitta Janerot-Sjoberg, Inger Ekman, Maria Linden, and Ankica Babic. 2015. A hybrid model for diagnosing sever [sic] aortic stenosis in asymptomatic patients using phonocardiogram. In World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, D. A. Jaffray (Ed.). Springer International, Cham, Switzerland, 7--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. L. O. Gostin, S. F. Halabi, and K. Wilson. 2018. Health data and privacy in the digital era. Journal of the American Medical Association 320, 3 (2018), 233--234. DOI:10.1001/jama.2018.8374Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. iRhythm System. 2019. The Flexible, Patient-Friendly, Accurate Cardiac Monitor. Retrieved July 5, 2019 from https://www.irhythmtech.com/professionals/why-zio.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Kang, R. Doroshow, J. McConnaughey, and R. Shekhar. 2017. Automated identification of innocent Still's murmur in children. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 64, 6 (2017), 1326--1334.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Thomas A. Lasko, Jui G. Bhagwat, Kelly H. Zou, and Lucila Ohno-Machado. 2005. The use of receiver operating characteristic curves in biomedical informatics. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 38, 5 (2005), 404--415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Andrew Owen and Michael Y. Henein. 2011. Challenges in the management of severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 40, 4 (2011), 848--850.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. PhysioNet. 2019. Computed Tomography Images for Intracranial Hemorrhage Detection and Segmentation. Retrieved December 25, 2019 from https://physionet.org/physiobank/database/#cv.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kanav Saraf, Christopher Inhwan Baek, Michael H. Wasko, Xu Zhang, Yi Zheng, Per H. Borgstrom, Aman Mahajan, and William J. Kaiser. 2019. In Proceedings of the IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. B. M. Spiegel, M. Kaneshiro, M. M. Russell, A. Lin, A. Patel, V. Tashjian, V. Zegarski, et al. 2014. Validation of an acoustic gastrointestinal surveillance biosensor for postoperative ileus. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 18, 10 (2014), 1795--1803.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S. R. Steinhubl, J. Waalen, A. M. Edwards, L. M. Ariniello, R. R. Mehta, G. S. Ebner, C. Carter, et al. 2018. Effect of a home-based wearable continuous ECG monitoring patch on detection of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation: The mSToPS randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 320, 2 (2018), 146--155. DOI:10.1001/jama.2018.8102Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Retrieved May 20, 2019 from https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/health-insurance-portability-and-accountability-act-1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2018a. Cardiac Performance System. FDA 510(k). Retrieved June 8, 2018 from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/K173156.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2018b. SEM Scanner System. Retrieved December 20, 2018 from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/DEN170021.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2019. Apple Watch FDA 510(k). Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/DEN180044.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Frank Wang, Yeung Lam, Alireza Mehrnia, Barbara Bates-Jensen, Majid Sarrafzadeh, and William J. Kaiser. 2010. A wireless biomedical instrument for evidence-based tissue wound characterization. In Proceedings of Wireless Health 2010 (WH’10). ACM, New York, NY, 222--223.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. James Y. Xu, William J. Kaiser, and Greg J. Pottie. 2013. Enabling large scale ground-truth acquisition and system evaluation in wireless health. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 60, 1 (2013), 174--178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. James Y. Xu, Yuwen Sun, Zhao Wang, William J. Kaiser, and Greg J. Pottie. 2011. Context guided and personalized activity classification system. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Wireless Health (WH’11). ACM, New York, NY, Article 12, 10 pages. DOI:10.1145/2077546.2077559Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Transformation in Healthcare by Wearable Devices for Diagnostics and Guidance of Treatment

    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 1
      January 2020
      99 pages
      ISSN:2691-1957
      EISSN:2637-8051
      DOI:10.1145/3386261
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 March 2020
      • Received: 1 August 2019
      • Accepted: 1 August 2019
      Published in health Volume 1, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)128
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14

      Other Metrics

    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!