Clinicians' perspectives on inertial measurement units in clinical practice

PLoS One. 2020 Nov 13;15(11):e0241922. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241922. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been increasingly popular in rehabilitation research. However, despite their accessibility and potential advantages, their uptake and acceptance by health professionals remain a big challenge. The development of an IMU-based clinical tool must bring together engineers, researchers and clinicians. This study is part of a developmental process with the investigation of clinicians' perspectives about IMUs. Clinicians from four rehabilitation centers were invited to a 30-minute presentation on IMUs. Then, two one-hour focus groups were conducted with volunteer clinicians in each rehabilitation center on: 1) IMUs and their clinical usefulness, and 2) IMUs data analysis and visualization interface. Fifteen clinicians took part in the first focus groups. They expressed their thoughts on: 1) categories of variables that would be useful to measure with IMUs in clinical practice, and 2) desired characteristics of the IMUs. Twenty-three clinicians participated to the second focus groups, discussing: 1) functionalities, 2) display options, 3) clinical data reported and associated information, and 4) data collection duration. Potential influence of IMUs on clinical practice and added value were discussed in both focus groups. Clinicians expressed positive opinions about the use of IMUs, but their expectations were high before considering using IMUs in their practice.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Physicians / psychology*
  • Rehabilitation Centers
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

This research was funded in part by the strategic cluster Ingénierie de technologies interactives en réadaptation (Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies; grant number 265 381), and by the Sentinel North program of Université Laval (Canada First Research Excellence Fund; team grant 2.8). FR is supported by a Research Scholar grant from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (grant number 34699). ND was supported by post-doc scholarships from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé and the Réseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-Réadaptation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.