Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient and practitioner experience with clinical lumbar motion monitor wearable technology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Unfortunately, there is no gold standard for objectively quantifying low back function. The clinical lumbar motion monitor (CLMM), a wearable technology, has been developed to provide an objective measure of low back function. The evaluation for the patient is like playing a video game with their back. For health care practitioners the CLMM provides three metrics including overall impairment, structural/muscular and test reliability (do we have good data). This study had two goals. 1) To evaluate the ease of use for the patients. 2) To evaluate how the health care practitioners were able to use the results. Sixty-six low back pain patients were evaluated in the study and 18 health care practitioners were interviewed after receiving CLMM results on their patients. The patients were given a survey immediately after evaluation completion. The practitioners participated in a phone survey after all patient evaluations were completed. Ninety-two percent of the patients either agreed or strongly agreed that the monitor was comfortable and 98% either agreed or strongly agreed that the instructions were clear. One hundred percent of the health care practitioners agreed the test reliability metric was informative and provided a new perspective to their clinical impression. Overall LBP patients were satisfied with the evaluation and health care practitioners thought the results added to their clinical impression. The CLMM technology provides an objective quantitative measure of low back function that may change the way health care practitioners treat LBP patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, Woolf A, Bain C, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:968–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI. Back pain prevalence and visit rates estimates from U.S. National Survey 2002. Spine. 2006;31(23):2724–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hartvigsen J, Hancock M, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kemper SJ, Stanton TR, Williams CM, Maher CG, Hush JM. How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1477-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The oswestry disability index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Marras WS, Ferguson SA, Gupta P, Bose J, Parnianpour M, Kim J, et al. The quantification of low back disorder using motion measures: methodology and validation. Spine. 1999;24(20):2091–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Marras WS, Lewis KK, Ferguson SA, Parnianpour M. Impairment magnification during dynamic trunk motion. Spine. 2000;25(5):587–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferguson SA, Marras WS, Gupta P. Longitudinal quantitative measure of the natural course of low back pain recovery. Spine. 2000;25(15):1950–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ferguson SA, Gallagher S, Marras WS. Validity and reliability of sincerity test for dynamic trunk motion. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:236–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferguson SA, Marras WS, Burr D, Woods S, Mendel E, Gupta P. Quantification of a meaningful change in low back functional impairment. Spine. 2009;34(19):2060–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gao Y, Li H, Luo Y. An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in healthcare. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2015;115(9):1704–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Or CKL, Karsh BT. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:550–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Sue A. Ferguson & William S. Marras

  2. Department of Family Medicine, The Ohio State University, 543 Tylor Ave., Columbus, OH, 43203, USA

    Robin S. Berner

  3. OhioHealth, 300 Polaris Parkway, Westerville, OH, 43082, USA

    Matthew A. Bridger

  4. Department of Orthopeadics, The Ohio State University, 456 W. 10th Ave., Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Safdar N. Khan & Elizabeth M. Yu

  5. Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, 410 W.10th Ave., Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Tristan E. Weaver

Authors
  1. Sue A. Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robin S. Berner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew A. Bridger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Safdar N. Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tristan E. Weaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elizabeth M. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. William S. Marras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sue A. Ferguson.

Ethics declarations

Statement of informed consent

All participants both patients and health care providers signed an informed consent.

Statement of human and animal rights

All data collected during this study followed and were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 and 2008.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferguson, S.A., Berner, R.S., Bridger, M.A. et al. Patient and practitioner experience with clinical lumbar motion monitor wearable technology. Health Technol. 9, 289–295 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-019-00330-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-019-00330-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation