We conducted a multicenter international study in 5 tertiary PD centers: the Fundación Investigación HM Hospitales in Spain, the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Canada, the Charles University in the Czech Republic, the CNS-Campus Neurológico in Portugal, and the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital Dublin in Ireland between December 2020 and September 2023. The data from Ireland were not included in this study due to data protection issues.

In this study, we evaluated the usability and acceptability of 3 health technologies (MooVeo [9], PDMonitor [10], and SpiroGym [11]) with a focus on usability, user confidence, and user satisfaction.

MooVeo [9] is a software designed to assist physicians and people with PD by using a standard computer’s webcam. It has a technology readiness level of 6‐7 and it is intended to support disease monitoring in various settings: (1) response to treatment, (2) disease progression, or (3) diagnosis. The patient stands at a prespecified distance from a computer screen. MooVeo guides the patient through 3 simple motion tasks, detailing how to perform them through text and figures and recording videos of the different tasks. The software localizes different points on the hand and tracks them as the patient performs the task. The software generates various metrics, such as mean amplitude and speed of movement. A report is created with these data, which can be sent to either the patient or a clinician. The software can be run locally or as a cloud app in a secure HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-/GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)-compliant manner. MooVeo's clinical utility has not yet been completely proven, as it is still under development. MooVeo is designed to objectively evaluate PD motor signs using a standard webcam. It has been validated against Inertial Measurement Units, the movement disorder society (MDS)–Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale, and neurological diagnosis in prior work [9].

SpiroGym [11] is a software designed to help patients improve their motivation and adherence to a self-managed respiratory therapy program. It has a technology readiness level of 6‐7. SpiroGym is installed on a mobile phone or tablet. It requires the use of an external microphone that transforms the sound created by a respiratory therapy device (both the microphone and this device were included in the evaluation performed in this study) into a graph, to provide visual feedback to people with PD on the quality of their inspiratory or expiratory maneuvers. SpiroGym also creates training diaries and provides summary information, such as the mean strength and effective time of the maneuver, and long-term status of expiratory or inspiratory muscle and cough strength. For telemedicine purposes, the SpiroGym sends patients’ training results to their therapist via the internet. As mentioned, it could be used clinically both for an active respiratory therapy approach and for respiratory function tracking.

PDMonitor [10] is a Class IIa Medical Device (European regulation EE 93/42/EEC). The PDMonitor system (PD Neurotechnology Ltd) is a noninvasive, continuous monitoring system composed of a set of wearable monitoring devices (it has 5 different sensors), a patient mobile app, and a physician web and mobile app. PDMonitor devices are attached to the patient’s body in specific body positions (the shanks, wrists, and waist). This solution enables people with PD and their care partners to record data on medication, nutrition, and self-assessed motor and nonmotor status information (it includes basic questionnaires with free-text questions to keep track of these aspects as a secondary objective). The web app, called the “Physician Tool,” provides physicians reports on a number of motor and nonmotor PD features, based on the data collected by the wearable devices and the patient mobile app.

The study included individuals (1) diagnosed with PD according to the MDS criteria [12], (2) aged between 20 and 80 years, (3) who were willing to participate after providing informed consent, and (4) who were able to complete the necessary data collection instruments. Exclusion criteria ruled out (1) individuals unable to communicate independently, regardless of communication aids, or (2) those with significant non–PD-related comorbidities. The study was designed to detect 95% of possible user errors with an estimated probability of occurrence of 0.15% using a sample size of at least 30 participants [8]. For one technology, PD Monitor, due to the CE (Conformité Européenne)-mark requirements, only a limited number of certified translations were available. As a result, the sample size was smaller for this technology, as some of the participants' languages have not been included in the available certified manuals which are required for a CE-marked device.

This study consisted of 3 phases over a 2-week period, including a screening/baseline visit, an intermediate phone call, and a final visit. During the screening/baseline visit, the patient received information about the study. After signing the consent, demographic and clinical data were collected, including time since diagnosis, Hoehn and Yahr stage, and MDS-Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale part III in the practically defined “ON” state. Study participants performed an initial on-site use of MooVeo. The other 2 technologies—PDMonitor and SpiroGym—were explained and then used according to the following timeline: week 1 - PDMonitor, week 2 – SpiroGym; Multimedia Appendices 1 and 2).

A phone call was made after Week 1 to inquire about any adverse events and to ensure data collection for MooVeo and PDMonitor. The second in-person visit occurred at the end of Week 2 with a similar schedule of assessments.

The System Usability Scale (SUS) [13] is a short, reliable tool for measuring usability. It consists of a 10-item questionnaire with 5 response options, from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree.” The final score ranges from 0 to 100, corresponding to a percentile ranking. SUS scores above 68 are considered above average [14]. The iCARE-PD Questionnaire (Multimedia Appendix 3) was created by the iCARE-PD consortium, and it evaluated the user’s perspective on the use of each technology and has 2 parts. Part 1 evaluates the acceptability and usefulness of digital health technologies through 14 questions with 5 Likert-type response options ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree,” and a free-text response to provide additional information. Part 2 collected the user’s perspective on applying digital technology for self-care in daily life. Study participants chose one of 9 pairs of words that captured different attitudes toward each digital technology. Additionally, study participants could suggest design improvements for each digital health technology in a free-text format and comment on both positive and negative aspects. Data were collected via web using the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Vanderbilt University) database [15,16].

Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted. We did not compare the different technologies, so no inference techniques were used. The reason is that the 3 technologies are not comparable by nature: they offer dissimilar datasets, have different intended uses, and hold different regulatory stages. The analyses were performed using R (version 4.3.2; R Core Team) [17]. The qualitative data analysis was performed using thematic analysis techniques [18,19]. Two team members evaluated all raw responses in their entirety and performed independent iterations to identify the main themes. Subsequently, they identified subthemes and together, they agreed on the themes and subthemes they mutually identified before reanalyzing the answers and counting how many times they were mentioned.

Deidentified clinical data were collected and managed using REDCap software in compliance with data protection regulations applicable to study sites. A unique identification code was assigned to each participant.

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Instituto de Investigación HM Hospitales (protocol code 18.05.1245-GHM approved on 26 December 2018). Informed consent was obtained by each participant following Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (ICH E6 R2) and in accordance with the ethics committee's approval of the protocol. All participants provided written informed consent before enrollment in the study.

A total of 43 people with PD were included in the study (MooVeo, n=33; SpiroGym, n=32; PDMonitor, n=16) from the participating countries (Canada: n=10, 23.3%; Czech Republic: n=10, 23.3%; Portugal: n=10, 23.3%; and Spain: n=13, 30.2%). Table 1 contains the demographic and clinical characteristics of study participants.

The median SUS score was 75.0 (IQR 62.5‐82.5) for MooVeo, 73.8 (59.4‐78.1) for PD Monitor, and 82.5 (72.5‐87.5) for SpiroGym. After normalization using the grade proposed by Bangor et al [14], the average SUS score for each one was within the C (acceptable range; Figure 1).

Individual responses to the SUS identified various areas of improvement (Figure 2), namely:

Study participants found the 3 technologies useful for managing their condition at home (MooVeo: n=25, 76%; PDMonitor: n=16, 100%; and SpiroGym: n=27, 84%) as well as interactive and motivating (n=28, 86%; n=13, 83%; and n=31, 96%; respectively). Additionally, they expressed willingness to use them again (n=28, 86%; n=13, 83%; and n=29, 92%; respectively), noting their ease of use (n=32, 97%; n=13, 83%; and n=29, 92%; respectively), ease of recall (n=30, 90%; n=13, 83%; and n=29, 92%; respectively), and independence in usage without external assistance (n=25, 76%; n=13, 83%; and n=29, 92%; respectively; Figure 3).

Areas of improvement as reported by study participants in the iCARE-PD survey included (Figure 3):

The analyses of attitudes toward the use of each digital technology revealed that the 3 systems were generally perceived positively, with values ranging from 1 to 2 (scale range: −3, +3, Figure 4).

Six themes were identified throughout the participants’ responses regarding positive and negative aspects of each technology and potential improvements: guidance (number of times identified=26), user interface (n=47), reports (n=22), usefulness (n=42), compatibility (n=24), and hardware (n=30). The 6 themes with the most relevant subthemes together with some examples can be seen in Table 2. The complete analyses can be found in Multimedia Appendix 4.

In this study, we individually assessed the usability and acceptability of 3 health technologies developed within the iCARE-PD consortium. As stated in the introduction, a direct comparison among them was not intended, given their differing purposes and developmental stages. The SUS scores for all systems exceeded the threshold for market acceptance (SUS scores above 68 are considered above average or acceptable and a tech device is considered not acceptable if it goes below 50 points on the score [14]). This was further supported by item-level analyses indicating ease of learning, ease of use, and confidence in use. Additionally, areas for improvement were identified, particularly concerning user experience, technical support, and training materials. Users emphasized the need for simpler tasks, clearer instructions, and streamlined functionality, which should be taken into consideration. These findings highlight the importance of customer support in health care technologies, aligning with a 2022 study conducted in Germany on the PDMonitor technology [20,21].

Despite these challenges, users expressed a willingness to continue using the technologies, recognizing their value in independently managing their disease at home. The iCARE-PD survey revealed installation challenges, providing further insight into the technical difficulties previously mentioned and reinforcing the necessity of clear instructions for effective engagement.

Qualitative analysis identified key patient concerns, categorized into guidance issues, user interface, reports, usefulness, compatibility, and hardware. Notably, hardware aspects such as ergonomics were highly valued by patients and significantly influenced their evaluation of usability and acceptability. Overall, users prioritized ease of use, clarity of purpose, and robust technical support. While some patients did not clearly perceive the role of the technology in self-management, they acknowledged its potential utility within a broader disease management approach. Ensuring hardware adaptation to users’ needs and providing easily understandable results were also identified as critical factors for enhancing user experience and satisfaction with health care technologies.

There remains a scarcity of qualitative studies incorporating patients’ perspectives in technology development. Among the limited examples, our findings align closely with those of Grosjean et al [22], who conducted a qualitative analysis within our group, evaluating a “digital companion” for people living with PD to support personalized self-care. Their study identified 6 main issues: meaningful visualization, interactivity, usefulness, adaptability and personalization, compatibility, and guidance. The striking similarity of these findings to our results, despite differences in the technological solutions assessed, lends further credibility to our conclusions.

We propose this framework as a potential model for future technology studies that prioritize the patient’s perspective or, at the very least, incorporate this subanalysis into the overall development process. This approach could ensure that, by the time technological solutions reach clinical practice, they have already been tested and refined based on patient input.

As described in prior work for other wearable and similar technologies [23], for some participants, there were usability or acceptability issues identified when testing each solution. This work has allowed the development teams to gather unique insights that will help improve the usability experience, adherence, and utility for future users with PD, once these perspectives are integrated into each technology and validated through larger prospective efforts.

A key strength of our study is its inclusion of patient perspectives in usability and acceptability assessments. The qualitative approach used here is rarely found in PD-related literature [24], and we believe that similar methodologies could benefit other technology development projects. We also included a variety of geographies and participants across the disease spectrum to make the study as globally representative as possible.

A significant challenge was the evaluation of 3 distinct TEC solutions under a unified approach. However, this reflects a more realistic scenario, as the implementation of multiple digital technologies appears more feasible than relying on a single one, bringing us closer to future real-world applications [7]. Although these digital technologies measure different aspects of PD, a broader range of them may be required to capture both motor and nonmotor critical aspects. Nonetheless, patient compliance and digital literacy remain significant concerns, particularly when multiple tech solutions must be worn over extended periods of time and their integration for PD management remains to be evaluated [7].

The use of these solutions did not always align precisely with their intended purpose. A notable example is PDMonitor, designed for continuous use over 3‐5 days per month, with its graphs intended for trained physicians rather than patients [10]. Consequently, patient perception of benefit in this study may have been influenced by the fact that PDMonitor effectiveness is inherently linked to timely, well-informed physician decisions. Previous research has demonstrated that continuous use and physician engagement with this technology can yield long-term benefits for patients [25].

A key limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size, which constrains statistical power and generalizability. Future research should aim to increase the sample of participants using these technologies. However, the cohort examined here provides a reasonable representation of a PD population with national diversity. Another limitation is the exclusion of individuals with PD who had significant comorbidities preventing them from using the studied technologies. As a result, caution should be exercised when generalizing findings to the broader PD population. Future projects should aim for greater inclusivity. Furthermore, while we did not stratify the analysis by disease stage in this study, future research could incorporate this approach to provide more nuanced insights. TEC solutions such as telemedicine and self-care applications could be particularly beneficial for patients with comorbidities who cannot visit the hospital, offering opportunities for regular televisits or teletraining.

To minimize ecological bias, technologies were used in participants’ homes. However, each technology was only used for 1 week. Future studies should evaluate long-term usability and acceptability, as an extended observation period may yield deeper insights into patient adherence and overall acceptability of these technologies. It remains unclear whether longer exposure would enhance usability and acceptability or reveal additional barriers. It remains unclear whether longer exposure would enhance usability and acceptability or reveal additional barriers. Moreover, other critical questions remain unanswered, including data on clinical utility [20] and perspectives from additional stakeholders such as health care providers, caregivers, and technical experts.

Finally, digital literacy was assumed in this study but was not explicitly evaluated. We acknowledge that this could represent a significant barrier to technology adoption, usability, and acceptability. To promote equitable access and effective implementation, future projects should include an evaluation of digital literacy across diverse patient populations.

The enhancement of the methodology by which technology is introduced to patients will facilitate the integration of telehealth in clinical care, thereby improving disease management, increasing efficiency, providing enhanced access for all, and enabling the individualization of decision-making.

This article presents a comprehensive evaluation of the usability and acceptability of 3 technologies used in the treatment of patients with PD. The study illustrates how the strengths and weaknesses of the technologies were identified, including a qualitative analysis that revealed guidance, user interface, reports, usefulness, compatibility, and hardware as the primary concerns of the patients. These findings will inform the essential changes that are necessary to enhance the patients’ perception and use of our devices. We put forth this framework as a potential model for future technology studies that prioritize the patient perspective.