Deakin University
2 files

Validation and acceptability of a cuffless wrist-worn wearable blood pressure monitoring device among users and health care professionals: Mixed methods study

Version 3 2024-06-18, 17:19
Version 2 2024-06-06, 09:58
Version 1 2019-10-20, 05:06
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-18, 17:19 authored by Shariful IslamShariful Islam, S Cartledge, Chandan KarmakarChandan Karmakar, Jonathan RawstornJonathan Rawstorn, Steve FraserSteve Fraser, C Chow, Ralph MaddisonRalph Maddison
Background Blood pressure (BP) is an important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its long-term monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless devices enable the capture of multiple BP measures during everyday activities and could improve BP monitoring, but little is known about their validity or acceptability. Objective This study aimed to validate a wrist-worn cuffless wearable BP device (Model T2; TMART Technologies Limited) and assess its acceptability among users and health care professionals. Methods A mixed methods study was conducted to examine the validity and comparability of a wearable cuffless BP device against ambulatory and home devices. BP was measured simultaneously over 24 hours using wearable and ambulatory devices and over 7 days using wearable and home devices. Pearson correlation coefficients compared the degree of association between the measures, and limits of agreement (LOA; Bland-Altman plots) were generated to assess measurement bias. Semistructured interviews were conducted with users and 10 health care professionals to assess acceptability, facilitators, and barriers to using the wearable device. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Results A total of 9090 BP measurements were collected from 20 healthy volunteers (mean 20.3 years, SD 5.4; N=10 females). Mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) measured using the ambulatory (24 hours), home (7 days), and wearable (7 days) devices were 126 (SD 10)/75 (SD 6) mm Hg, 112 (SD 10)/71 (SD 9) mm Hg and 125 (SD 4)/77 (SD 3) mm Hg, respectively. Mean (LOA) biases and precision between the wearable and ambulatory devices over 24 hours were 0.5 (−10.1 to 11.1) mm Hg for SBP and 2.24 (−17.6 to 13.1) mm Hg for DBP. The mean biases (LOA) and precision between the wearable and home device over 7 days were −12.7 (−28.7 to 3.4) mm Hg for SBP and −5.6 (−20.5 to 9.2) mm Hg for DBP. The wearable BP device was well accepted by participants who found the device easy to wear and use. Both participants and health care providers agreed that the wearable cuffless devices were easy to use and that they could be used to improve BP monitoring. Conclusions Wearable BP measures compared well against a gold-standard ambulatory device, indicating potential for this user-friendly method to augment BP management, particularly by enabling long-term monitoring that could improve treatment titration and increase understanding of users’ BP response during daily activity and stressors.



JMIR mHealth and uHealth



Article number

ARTN e14706


e14706 - e14706









Publication classification

C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal

Copyright notice

2019, Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam, Susie Cartledge, Chandan Karmakar, Jonathan Charles Rawstorn, Steve F Fraser, Clara Chow, Ralph Maddison