This evaluated the evidence for the use of wearable spinal posture systems which can provide live biofeedback in clinical practice.
37 studies met the inclusion requirements, which included wearable technology being able to monitor posture in the sagittal and/or coronal planes and published between 1980 and 2018.
[I had this written/summarised for close to two years so if I don’t post it now then I probably never will.]
Results:
Over 30 devices were identified in the studies with 19 involving real-time feedback systems. Parameters of measurement included balance, spinal positioning, motion analyses & incidence of pre-defined postural positions.
When accuracy was discussed in the studies, “accuracy rates of devices were high with error ranges within 5 degrees in the majority of capturing moments (> 85% of the time)” (pg. 3). The authors speculate that the generally high accuracy of the devices may be indicative of publication bias against less accurate devices.
A meta-analysis of postural assessments couldn’t be performed due to limitations in cohort differences.
The authors briefly discuss the potential benefits of wearable monitors. This includes in multiple occupational settings like offices, healthcare or construction – the latter of which where workers are regularly exposed to repetitive strained postures and heavy lifting.
Other benefits include aiding physical therapists in helping ensure patients are safely executing rehabilitation exercises, or even in remote treatment settings.
Interestingly, it’s suggested that postural wearables “have the potential to become the primary treatment modality for some musculoskeletal disorders”, for instance in treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Other applications of postural monitoring wearables includes detection of falls within the home [and presumably in the workplace, eg lone working), assessment of Parkinson’s severity, and other training for falls prevention.
However, although it appears that these types of devices have high accuracy, data assessing long-term outcomes and robust validation are lacking. Most of the included studies either solely proposed prototype designs or only conducted preliminary verification of the devices using small samples or limited timeframes.
Thus, far more research is needed in larger and longer validation studies for these devices. One interesting avenue for further research is the incorporation of sensors into smart textiles.
Authors: Simpson, L., Maharaj, M. M., & Mobbs, R. J. (2019). BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 20(1), 1-14.
Study link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2430-6
Link to the LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6934262853335937024?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_updateV2%3A%28urn%3Ali%3AugcPost%3A6934262853335937024%2CFEED_DETAIL%2CEMPTY%2CDEFAULT%2Cfalse%29
SafetyInsights.org 