Introduction: Wearable sensor technologies enable Defence to optimise human performance, remotely identify physiological abnormalities and enhance medical support. Maximising the acceptability of devices will ensure they are worn alongside other equipment. This study assessed the acceptability and comfort of four devices at different anatomical locations during military training.
Method: A cross-sectional pilot study during a live firing infantry exercise or adventurous training assessed four anatomical locations concurrently over 5 days: finger, wrist, upper arm and chest. Participants rated comfort, acceptability and preference using a standardised questionnaire after 12 hours and 5 days of wear.
Results: Twenty-one regular British Army personnel soldiers participated, aged 24.4 (4.3) years. The upper arm location received the highest rating by participants for comfort, followed in order by wrist, finger and chest (p=0.002, Χ2=40.0). The finger was most commonly identified as uncomfortable during specific activities (76%), followed by chest (48%), wrist (23%) and upper arm devices (14%). There was no significant difference in participant confidence in the devices to collect data or allow movement, but there was a trend towards greater confidence in upper arm and wrist locations to stay in position than the others (p=0.059, Χ2=28.0). After 5 days of wear, 43% of participants said they preferred the upper arm for comfort, followed by wrist (36%), finger (24%) and chest (10%). 73% and 71% would wear the wrist and upper arm devices on deployed operations, compared with 29% and 24% for chest and finger devices, respectively.
Conclusion: The upper arm location offered greater acceptability and comfort than finger, wrist or chest locations. It is essential to consider such findings from occupationally relevant settings when selecting wearable technology. A larger service evaluation in diverse settings is recommended to guide the choice of the most acceptable wearable devices across different equipment, roles and environments.
Keywords: health economics; information technology; primary care.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.