Abstracts

Patient Centered Design Criteria for Seizure Detection Wearables

Abstract number : 1.098
Submission category : 2. Interprofessional Care / Professionals in Epilepsy Care
Year : 2016
Submission ID : 197278
Source : www.aesnet.org
Presentation date : 12/3/2016 12:00:00 AM
Published date : Nov 21, 2016, 18:00 PM

Authors :
Peter Glynn, Nationwide Children's Hospital- The Ohio State University; Anup D. Patel, Nationwide Children's Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine; Robert Moss, Seizure Tracker.com; Robert Strouse, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Stev

Rationale: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition. Seizure diary reports and patient or caregiver reported seizure counts are often underestimated. Many caregivers express stress and anxiety about the epilepsy patient having seizures when they are not present. Therefore, a need exists for the ability to recognize and/or detect a seizure in the home setting. Methods: A survey instrument utilizing a population of patients and caregivers was created to obtain information on the design criteria most desired for epilepsy patients in regards to wearable devices. Results: Respondents thought that sensors for muscle signal (61.4%) and heart rate (58.0%) would be most helpful followed by the O2 sensor (41.4%). There was more interest in these three sensor types than for an accelerometer (25.5%). There was very little interest in a microphone (8.9%), galvanic skin response (8.0%) or a barometer (4.9%). Based on a rating scale of 1-5 with 5 being most important, respondents felt that "Detecting All Seizures" (4.73) is the most important device feature followed by "Text/Email Alerts" (4.53), "Comfort" (4.46) and "Battery Life" (4.43) as an equally important group of features. Respondents felt that "Not Knowing Device is for Seizures" (2.60) and "Multiple Uses" (2.57) were equally very unimportant device features. Average ratings differ significantly across age groups for the following features: button, multiuse, not knowing device is for seizures, alarm, style, and text ability. The p-values are all < 0.002. 82.5% of respondents [95% confidence interval is (80.0%, 84.7%)] are willing to pay more than $100 for a wearable seizure detection device and 42.8% of respondents [95% confidence interval is (39.8%, 45.9%)] are willing to pay more than $200. Conclusions: Our survey results demonstrated that patients and caregivers have design features that are important to them in regards to a wearable seizure detection device. Overall, the ability to detect all seizures rated highest among our respondents which continue to be an unmet need in the epilepsy community in regards to seizure detection. Additional uses for a wearable were not as important. Based on our results, it is important to that an alert (via test and/or email) for events be a portion of the system. A reasonable price point appears to be around $200 to $300. Accelerometer is less important to the epilepsy public when compared to the use of heart rate, oxygen saturation, or muscle twitches or signals. As further products become developed for use in other health arenas, it will be important to consider patient and caregiver desires in order to meet the need and address the gap in such devices that currently exists. Funding: This project was made possible through a generous donation from the Gerlach Family.
Interprofessional Care