Usability and Acceptance of Wearable Biosensors in Forensic Psychiatry: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study

Abstract

BackgroundThe use of wearable biosensor devices for monitoring and coaching in forensic psychiatric settings yields high expectations for improved self-regulation of emotions and behavior in clients and staff members. More so, if clients have mild intellectual disabilities (IQ 50-85), they might benefit from these biosensors as they are easy to use in everyday life, which ensures that clients can practice with the devices in multiple stress and arousal-inducing situations. However, research on (continuous) use and acceptance of biosensors in forensic psychiatry for clients with mild intellectual disabilities and their caretakers is scarce. Although wearable biosensors show promise for health care, recent research showed that the acceptance and continuous use of wearable devices in consumers is not as was anticipated, probably due to low expectations. ObjectiveThe main goal of this study was to investigate the associations between and determinants of the expectation of usability, the actual experienced usability, and the intention for continuous use of biosensors. MethodsA total of 77 participants (31 forensic clients with mild intellectual disabilities and 46 forensic staff members) participated in a 1-week trial. Preceding the study, we selected 4 devices thought to benefit the participants in domains of self-regulation, physical health, or sleep. Qualitative and quantitative questionnaires were used that explored the determinants of usability, acceptance, and continuous use of biosensors. Questionnaires consisted of the System Usability Scale, the Technology Acceptance Model questionnaire, and the extended expectation confirmation model questionnaire. ResultsOnly the experienced usability of the devices was associated with intended continuous use. Forensic clients scored higher on acceptance and intention for continuous use than staff members. Moderate associations were found between usability with acceptance and continuous use. Staff members showed stronger associations between usability and acceptance (r=.80, P<.001) and usability and continuous use (r=.79, P<.001) than clients, who showed more moderate correlations between usability and acceptance (r=.46, P=.01) and usability and continuous use (r=.52, P=.003). The qualitative questionnaires in general indicated that the devices were easy to use and gave clear information. ConclusionsContrary to expectations, it was the actual perceived usability of wearing a biosensor that was associated with continuous use and to a much lesser extent the expectancy of usability. Clients scored higher on acceptance and intention for continuous use, but associations between usability and both acceptance and continuous use were markedly stronger in staff members. This study provides clear directions on how to further investigate these associations. For example, whether this is a true effect or due to a social desirability bias in the client group must be investigated. Clients with mild intellectual disabilities might benefit from the ease of use of these devices and their continuing monitoring and coaching apps. For these clients, it is especially important to develop easy-to-use biosensors with a minimum requirement on cognitive capacity to increase usability, acceptance, and continuous use.