Does profession matter toward perception of wearable technology for health monitoring in the field?
Presenter Type
UNO Graduate Student (Masters)
Major/Field of Study
Information Systems and Quantitative Analysis
Advisor Information
Professor at Public Health Informatics Lab
Location
MBSC Ballroom Poster # 404 - G (Masters)
Presentation Type
Poster
Start Date
24-3-2023 10:30 AM
End Date
24-3-2023 11:45 AM
Abstract
Introduction: Hazardous materials (hazmat) pose risk to health and safety of professionals involved with transportation and emergency response. Two distinct occupational groups that encounter hazmat events are professional truck drivers and first responders. Wearable technology is a tool that can assist with monitoring the health of professionals involved in hazmat events. The aim of our exploratory study was to compare and evaluate the perceptions of first responders and professional truck drivers on wearable technology and attitudes toward health monitoring.
Methods: A 16-question survey was administered to professional truck drivers via Facebook advertisement and to first responders via local fire departments. There were 218 and 112 respondents used for analysis for professional truck drivers and first responders, respectively. Statistical approach included bivariate analysis, latent class analysis, logistic regression analysis, and path analysis for the variables of interest.
Results: There were significant differences between first responders and professional drivers in perceptions of the benefits of monitoring certain health indicators. Professional drivers were more likely to have a history of wearable technology use compared to first responders (OR=10.1; CI 4.42,22.9), reported greater exposure to hazmat (OR=4.32; CI 2.24-8.32), and were more willing to have their health data monitored by someone other than themselves (OR=9.27; CI 3.67, 23.4). Multinomial regression model with three classes (determine by latent class analysis) revealed that occupation was not significant predictor of class preference for high or low endorsement to specific health indicators.
Discussion: Possible explanations for differences between the groups’ perceptions and attitudes of monitoring health included familiarity and terminology for health indicators, medical background knowledge, history of being monitored, and past use of wearable technology. Latent class analysis revealed that characteristics other than occupation led to the difference in endorsement of monitoring between the two groups. Barriers of use revealed some differences between the groups and warrants future research to explain these differences. Some limitations included low response rates for some variables and other possible confounding factors not included in the survey that may impact perceptions and attitudes of wearable technology.
Conclusion: The model fit was strong and provided plausible effect on the direction of variables that impacted perceptions of health monitoring between the two occupational groups. This is important for further investigation of factors that might influence attitudes toward wearable technology specifically in occupations that are at risk for exposure to hazmat. Wearable technology can be used to protect the health and safety of workers in dangerous occupations involving hazmat events.
Scheduling
10:45 a.m.-Noon, 1-2:15 p.m.
Does profession matter toward perception of wearable technology for health monitoring in the field?
MBSC Ballroom Poster # 404 - G (Masters)
Introduction: Hazardous materials (hazmat) pose risk to health and safety of professionals involved with transportation and emergency response. Two distinct occupational groups that encounter hazmat events are professional truck drivers and first responders. Wearable technology is a tool that can assist with monitoring the health of professionals involved in hazmat events. The aim of our exploratory study was to compare and evaluate the perceptions of first responders and professional truck drivers on wearable technology and attitudes toward health monitoring.
Methods: A 16-question survey was administered to professional truck drivers via Facebook advertisement and to first responders via local fire departments. There were 218 and 112 respondents used for analysis for professional truck drivers and first responders, respectively. Statistical approach included bivariate analysis, latent class analysis, logistic regression analysis, and path analysis for the variables of interest.
Results: There were significant differences between first responders and professional drivers in perceptions of the benefits of monitoring certain health indicators. Professional drivers were more likely to have a history of wearable technology use compared to first responders (OR=10.1; CI 4.42,22.9), reported greater exposure to hazmat (OR=4.32; CI 2.24-8.32), and were more willing to have their health data monitored by someone other than themselves (OR=9.27; CI 3.67, 23.4). Multinomial regression model with three classes (determine by latent class analysis) revealed that occupation was not significant predictor of class preference for high or low endorsement to specific health indicators.
Discussion: Possible explanations for differences between the groups’ perceptions and attitudes of monitoring health included familiarity and terminology for health indicators, medical background knowledge, history of being monitored, and past use of wearable technology. Latent class analysis revealed that characteristics other than occupation led to the difference in endorsement of monitoring between the two groups. Barriers of use revealed some differences between the groups and warrants future research to explain these differences. Some limitations included low response rates for some variables and other possible confounding factors not included in the survey that may impact perceptions and attitudes of wearable technology.
Conclusion: The model fit was strong and provided plausible effect on the direction of variables that impacted perceptions of health monitoring between the two occupational groups. This is important for further investigation of factors that might influence attitudes toward wearable technology specifically in occupations that are at risk for exposure to hazmat. Wearable technology can be used to protect the health and safety of workers in dangerous occupations involving hazmat events.