Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of the Metrological Performance of a Handheld 3D Laser Scanner Using a Pseudo-3D Ball-Lattice Artifact
Next Article in Special Issue
Flexible IoT Gas Sensor Node for Automated Life Science Environments Using Stationary and Mobile Robots
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Level Context Pyramid Network for Visual Sentiment Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Wearable Devices in Health Monitoring from the Environmental towards Multiple Domains: A Survey

1
Peter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics of TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, Braunschweig, 38106 Lower Saxony, Germany
2
Faculty of Engineering, Ilam University, Ilam 69315-516, Iran
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2021, 21(6), 2130; https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062130
Submission received: 19 February 2021 / Revised: 12 March 2021 / Accepted: 16 March 2021 / Published: 18 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligent IoT Platforms for Wellbeing)

Abstract

:
The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes the environmental, behavioral, physiological, and psychological domains that impact adversely human health, well-being, and quality of life (QoL) in general. The environmental domain has significant interaction with the others. With respect to proactive and personalized medicine and the Internet of medical things (IoMT), wearables are most important for continuous health monitoring. In this work, we analyze wearables in healthcare from a perspective of innovation by categorizing them according to the four domains. Furthermore, we consider the mode of wearability, costs, and prolonged monitoring. We identify features and investigate the wearable devices in the terms of sampling rate, resolution, data usage (propagation), and data transmission. We also investigate applications of wearable devices. Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Library delivered wearables that we require to monitor at least one environmental parameter, e.g., a pollutant. According to the number of domains, from which the wearables record data, we identify groups: G1, environmental parameters only; G2, environmental and behavioral parameters; G3, environmental, behavioral, and physiological parameters; and G4 parameters from all domains. In total, we included 53 devices of which 35, 9, 9, and 0 belong to G1, G2, G3, and G4, respectively. Furthermore, 32, 11, 7, and 5 wearables are applied in general health and well-being monitoring, specific diagnostics, disease management, and non-medical. We further propose customized and quantified output for future wearables from both, the perspectives of users, as well as physicians. Our study shows a shift of wearable devices towards disease management and particular applications. It also indicates the significant role of wearables in proactive healthcare, having capability of creating big data and linking to external healthcare systems for real-time monitoring and care delivery at the point of perception.

1. Introduction

For the year 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that outdoor air pollution caused death of 4.2 million people worldwide and that 91% of the world’s population breath unhealthy air [1]. In particular, the WHO estimates that about 58%, 18%, and 6% of deaths in heart disease and stroke, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung infections, and in lung cancer occurred due to air pollution, respectively [1]. In addition, WHO also estimates that 3.8 million people worldwide lose their life due to indoor air pollutants caused by cooking with stoves running on solid or biomass fuels or kerosene. Of these 3.8 million annual deaths, 27% were due to pneumonia, 27% due to heart disease, 18% due to stroke, 20% due to COPD, and 8% due to lung cancer who are vulnerable to air pollutants [2]. These statistics indicate the significant and intensive impact of environmental factors on human health.
Air pollutants are toxic and hazardous gases such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), volatile organic compounds (VoCs), nitric oxide (NO), nitric dioxide (NO 2 ), particular matter (PM), ozone (O 3 ), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ), teledyne (C 7 H 4 ), hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ), and ethanol (C 2 H 5 OH). Other environmental factors that have an impact on health and wellbeing are, for instance, the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, the light intensity and daylight length, the sound level (SL), and air conditions such as temperature (T), humidity (H), and pressure (P) [3,4,5]. In particular, UV radiation is proven as major cause of skin cancer [6,7]. A high SL has detrimental effects on sleep quality and the nervous system. Specifically, these effects are higher in patients suffering from chronic diseases, such as heart disease and hypertension [8,9].
However, factors influencing health are not restricted to the environmental domain. The WHO also recognizes behavioral, physiological, and psychological domains relevant for quality of life (QoL) and health, impacting subjects with chronic diseases and elderly people [10]. Furthermore, factors of the environmental domain affect the other domains. [11]. Mobile health (mHealth) [12], electronic health (eHealth) [13], and the Internet of medical things (IoMT) [14] shift the traditional methodology (i.e., symptom → diagnosis → treatment) towards health protection (i.e., monitoring → prediction → prevention) [15]. This includes continuous, comprehensive, and simultaneous monitoring of all important influencing domains effecting healthcare [16]. At present, the management of chronic diseases is mostly reactive, which imposes additional costs and efforts on patient care systems [17]. The new healthcare model is predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory (4P) [18]. Unlike the current reactive treatment, it proactively focuses on the causes of diseases rather than its symptoms. Proactive healthcare may indicate symptoms of diseases or disorders long before their onset. Therefore, humans are motivated to evaluate (and, therefore, monitor) their lifestyle or health status, and to improve their QoL [17,19,20]. Applying proactive healthcare is economic, saves time, identifies chronic diseases at earlier stages, and increases the quality of service to patients [21]. Wearable devices are capable of monitoring environmental, behavioral, physiological, and psychological parameters [22]. The wearables can measure and interchange heterogeneous data from different domains, based on wireless body area network (WBAN) [23]. Using wireless sensor network (WSN) and WBAN approaches, more sensors are integrated which increases efficiency and flexibility of data collection, processing, transmission, and analysis [24,25]. Recent advances in semiconductor technology, such as shrinking the sensor’s size or diminishing its power consumption, and information and communication technology (ICT) have increased the use of wearable devices in health monitoring [26,27,28], as well as have proven a variety of benefits [29,30,31]. Furthermore, increased convenience and less interference with daily activities foster continuous rather than partial monitoring. This eases medical decision-making [32].
In this work, we consider wearable devices for simultaneous monitoring of parameters from all four domains, emphasising on the environmental domain and its integration with three other domains. Based on a literature survey, we aim at:
  • introducing criteria, principles, and features of wearable devices in healthcare and well-being,
  • identifying groups of wearable devices regarding the domain(s) of monitoring (Gx) such that “G” and “x” indicate the group and the number of monitoring domains, respectively,
  • identifying the applications of wearable devices,
  • determining additional characteristics such as monitoring duration, costs, and convenience of use, data usage (propagation), and based on that:
  • discussing the evolution of wearables, and
  • proposing requirements for future wearables.

2. Materials and Methods

In this survey, we identify wearable devices for health monitoring in academia between 2009 and 2020 (April) from the databases Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Library.

2.1. Selection Criteria

The International Data Company (IDC) defines five categories of wearables: watches, wristbands, clothing, ear wear, and others [33].Because of its direct and indirect impact to the other domains, we highlight the environmental domain, in particular, air pollutants. Accordingly, we include and exclude devices that are:
  • Inclusion:
    -
    worn on body, including wrist, waist, arm, foot, and chest,
    -
    measuring at least one toxic/hazardous air pollutant,
    -
    monitoring zero to more parameters from the behavioral, physiological, or psychological domains,
    -
    systems of wearables using WBAN,
    -
    garments, boots, gloves, and helmets, and
    -
    providing multiple carrying modes (e.g., attachments to bicycles, backpacks, etc.), as well as wearability.
  • Exclusion:
    -
    handheld, portable, or stationary, and
    -
    measuring behavioral, physiological, and/or psychological but not environmental parameters.
According to the WHO criteria, we differ and define four groups of wearables:
  • G1–Environmental: devices measure at least a single toxic/hazardous air pollutant. The number of parameters by each device is not restricted and may include physical (UV, light, SL, and etc.), as well as air conditions (T, H, and P).
  • G2–Environmental and behavioral: devices measure in the environmental and behavioral domains simultaneously: The G1 requirements apply and additionally, at least one single parameter from behavioral domain is recorded, e.g., physical activity. The domain includes parameters such as movement, gait, step counting, climbing, and body posture. For example, a wearable equipped with VoC and accelerometer is a G2 device.
  • G3–Environmental, behavioral, and physiological: devices meet requirements G2 and measure at least one physiological parameter.The physiological domain includes parameters such as vital signs (e.g., heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and skin temperature) and non-vital signs (e.g., skin conductance). Therefore, a G3 device has to deliver a minimum three parameters from different domains.
  • G4–All domains: devices measure parameters from environmental, behavioral, physiological, and psychological domains.Psychological domain includes the mood and emotion of a subject, measuring the parameters such galvanic skin response (GSR).

2.2. Methodology of Analysis

We analyze the devices and deliver descriptive and comparative statistics according to four principles of group, continuous monitoring (duration/power and current consumption), cost, and mode of wearability, features and specifications, and applications (Figure 1).

2.2.1. Principle

In previous work, we have introduced complete, continuous, cost-effective, and convenient (C4) monitoring as evaluation criteria for the performance of wearable devices [22]. Here, we apply these principles to specify each wearable and provide technical details, if available. The principles are:
  • Completeness: recognizes the number of domains according to the WHO definition. Due to missing integration of the psychological domain, so far, none of the wearables are complete.
  • Continuity: accomplishes the transition from only partial to ongoing patient monitoring. The period of monitoring is provided in hours or days, and information on power (mW) and current (mA) consumption support an estimate of battery run-time.
  • Cost-effectiveness: is important for users to participate in proactive medicine. The embedded system design significantly impacts the cost of a prototype. If data is available, we compare to well-known products in market in terms of expense and bill of material (BoM).
  • Convenience: addresses the mode of wearability. Dimension, compactness, and weight are important factors. In general, wrist-worn devices have a better convenience.

2.2.2. Features

We investigate the performance and efficiency of wearables, considering sampling rates, resolution, data transmission (storage), and data usage (propagation). We present this information as provided by the authors of identified papers.
  • Sampling rate: is the number of measurements per second (Hz) for a particular sensor. From the one side, increasing the sampling rate improves the real-time monitoring; but, from the other, it dissipates more power and storage and reduces the run-time. Hence, configuring a sensor’s sampling rate is a trade off and depends on the application.
  • Resolution: the better the resolution the higher the reliability and effectiveness in data fusion and decision-making. We also consider the limit of detection (LoD) as the lower boundary, and the sensor’s coverage range.
  • Data management: includes the data acquisition, storage, transmission, and propagation. Disease diagnostics and decision-making depends on the fusion of individual parameters and post-processing. Data management includes two steps:
    • Data transmission: for fusing, devices have to transmit the data using short- and long-range protocols. We also consider devices that transmit data but store it locally (Table 1).
      Short-range (SR): it addresses the protocols such as Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), and Zigbee.
      Long-range (LR): it addresses the protocols such as long-range (LoRa), wireless local area network (WLAN) or wireless fidelity (WiFi). We also consider devices that transmit data but store it locally (Table 1).
    • Data usage (propagation): depending on mode of data transmission and aim of measurement, the second step is implemented. Hence, four categories are identified:
      Internal memory: The wearable does not transmit data but stores it on the device, which we consider as a passive node that is disconnected to external systems.
      Smartphone: The wearable transmits data in short-range to a smartphone for monitoring, processing, and/or visualization. Such devices potentially can be integrated into healthcare system for bidirectional communication with medical personnel in an emergency.
      Computer: The wearable transmits data in short- or long-range to a personal computer (PC), desktop or a similar device for further processing and analysis. We consider the computer as the base for real-time monitoring and alerting (e.g., a fire station).
      Cloud or server: The wearable propagates data in three tiers. The gateway might be a smartphone or any other embedded system capable of data receiving and transmitting.

2.2.3. Application

We further analyze the application of the device. We classify into four categories:
  • General monitoring: are devices that only deliver data without any specific application. These devices neither target particular users nor send further notifications to their users.They usually are applied for user information without further processing or linkage to healthcare systems. Such devices do not support care delivery. Some examples are devices in air quality, air pollution, and environmental monitoring.
  • Specific diagnostics: are devices that have been designed, tested, and validated for particular situations and conditions, e.g., identification of a drunk driver. We specify the applications or user groups, e.g., specific age or firefighters.
  • Disease management: are devices that have been particularly tuned for patients suffering from a specific disease, such as diabetes, Alzheimer, respiratory diseases, COPD, or asthma.
  • Non-medical are devices that have been designed and tested under realistic scenarios in a primarily non-medical context, e.g., safety for industrial workers.

3. Results

The total number of 53 papers published between 2009 and 2020 met the requirements of this study (Figure 2). Our analysis delivers 35 devices of G1, 9 devices of G2, and 9 devices of G3. G4 has not yet been reported on.
Temperature and humidity are monitored by 38 and 34 devices, respectively. Toxic gases such as CO 2 and NO x are measured by 14, 13, and 13 devices from G1, G2, and G3, respectively. VoCs, CO, and O 3 are known as the hazardous gases with an adverse effect on health, each integrated into 12 devices. The list of environmental parameters is getting longer with particular matter, pressure, and SO 2 by 13, 13, and 7 devices, respectively. The ambient physical parameters with less immediate danger to human health are at the bottom of the list: UV, light, and sound level are measured by 7, 5, and 5 devices, respectively.
Thirty-five and eight tenths percent of the devices are waist-worn (18 in all three groups). Wrist-worn and arm-worn are 24.5% (12) and 15% (8) of the devices, respectively. Nine and four tenths percent (5) of the devices are integrated into garment. We specify the remaining devices as other modes of wearability: 7.5% (4) attachments, 3.7% (2) boot, 3.7% (2) helmet, and 3.7% (2) chest-worn (Figure 3, top-left).
Usually, the measurement is followed by data transmission to a second party (gateway) for collection. Among all, BLE is the most frequently used protocol (30.1%) as it consumes less power than standard Bluetooth or Zigbee, which is used by 26.4% (14) and 20.7% (11) of the devices, respectively. Only 5.6% (3) of the devices transmit via LoRa, 6 devices do not specify the protocol, 1 device uses other protocols (WiFi), and 1 device stores the data on the internal memory (Figure 3, top-right).
Sixty-four percent (34) of the devices transmit the data to a smartphone or cloud/server, each with 32% (17). Twenty-one percent (11) of the devices transmit to a PC, and only 15% (8) of the devices store the data locally (Figure 3, bottom-left).
Fifty-eight percent (32) of the devices are used in general monitoring, and 20% (11) of the devices are applied in specific diagnostics. In these devices, the target subjects or/and the study have been specifically defined. Thirteen percent (7) of the devices are used in disease management, and 9% (5) of the devices are applied in non-medical (Figure 3, bottom-right).

3.1. G1–Environmental Monitoring

In total, 22 different environmental parameters are measured by G1 devices. Temperature and humidity are measured by 23 and 22 devices, respectively. Nine devices measure CO 2 , NO x , and VoCs, which indicates the importance of air pollutants in environmental monitoring. Particular matter, pressure, and O 3 are, each integrated in 7 devices. CO and SO 2 are integrated into 6 and 4 devices, respectively. UV and light are measured by 3 devices (Figure 4, left).
Eight percent of G1 wearables are waist-, wrist-, or arm-worn. Waist-based monitoring is the most popular mode of wearability with 34% (12), wrist- and arm-worn modes are 23% (8) of the devices. Garments and other types are 20% (7) devices (Figure 5, top-left).
Bluetooth is the most used protocol with 31% (11) of the devices, followed by BLE and Zigbee with 22% (8) and 17% (6) of the devices, respectively. LoRa is used in 2 devices. WiFi is utilized by only 1 device. The protocols of two devices are unspecified (Figure 5, top-right).
Thirty-two percent (11) of the devices each transmits the data to a smartphone and a cloud/server. Twenty-three percent (8) of the devices transmit to a PC. Only 14% (5) of the devices store data locally (Figure 5, bottom-left).
Sixty-nine percent (24) of the devices are used in general monitoring. Eleven percent (4) of the devices are applied in specific diagnostics. Eleven percent (4) of the devices are used in disease management, and 9% (3) of the devices are applied in non-medical (Figure 5, bottom-right).
We review the first group of wearable devices in terms of principles, features and specifications, and application, if available (Table 2 and Table 3).

3.2. G2–Environmental and Behavioral Monitoring

Measuring environmental and behavioral domains at the same time are considered in G2 wearable devices. In addition to capability of measuring physical activities by integrated accelerometer and IMU, G2 devices in this study measure 15 different environmental parameters yielding large diversity from air conditions and hazardous/toxic air pollutants to ambient physical elements.
Temperature, humidity, and O 3 are measured by 6, 5, and 4 devices, respectively. Three devices measure CO, SO 2 , particle matter, and pressure which are the second popular environmental parameters. Three out of these 4 recent parameters are air pollutants which complies the essential needs of monitoring and the effect on human health. VoCs and NO 2 as the air pollutants, as well as UV, light, and sound level, each, are integrated into 2 devices. CO 2 and CH 4 stand at the bottom and are measured by 1 device (Figure 4).
G2 wearable devices are waist- or wrist-worn. 67% (6) of the devices are waist-worn and 33% (3) of the devices are worn on wrist (Figure 6, top-left).
BLE is the most used protocol with 45% (4) of the devices, followed by Bluetooth standard with 33% (3) of the devices and Zigbee with 11% (1) of the devices, respectively. The protocol of 1 device is not specified (Figure 6, top-right).
Fifty-six percent (5) of the devices transmit the data to a smartphone. Twenty-two percent (2) of the devices transmit the data to a cloud/server. Twenty-five percent (2) of the devices transmit the data to a PC (Figure 6, bottom-left).
Sixty-seven percent (6), 22% (2), and 11% (1) of the devices are used in general monitoring, specific diagnostics, and disease management, respectively (Figure 6, bottom-right).
Table 2. Wearable devices in environmental monitoring (G1): part I.
Table 2. Wearable devices in environmental monitoring (G1): part I.
DeviceWearabilityParametersEnergy ConsumptionData Transmission
Fresh Air [34]wrist-wornNO 2 , VoCsNANA
 [35]wrist-wornFormaldehyde, T, H7 daysSR: BLE, ext. mem.
 [36]waist-wornVoCs, T, H39–52 hExt. mem.
W-Air [37]wrist-wornO 3 ,CO 2 , T, H50 mA, 5 hSR: BLE
WE-Safe [38]wrist-wornCO 2 , CO, T, H, UV33 mALR: LoRa
WE-Safe [39]wrist-wornCO 2 , T, H, UV53.9 mALR: LoRa
 [40]helmetCO 2 , CO, VoC, T, H, P, UV, lightNALR: WiFi
 [41]attachmentCH 4 , T13 daysSR: Zigbee
 [42]arm-bandVoCs, T, HNASR: Bluetooth
 [43]waist-wornCO, SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , PM (1, 2.5, 10), T, H, PNASR: BLE
 [44]waist-wornCO, SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , NO, PM (2.5, 10), VoCs, T, H, PNASR: BLE
 [45]waist-wornPM (2.5), TNASR: BLE
 [46]ring-wornDNT, H 2 O 2 , MPO x 7.5 hSR: BLE
 [47]waist-wornPM (1, 2.5, 10), T, HNASR: Zigbee
 [48]wrist-wornCO 2 , T, H, P, light64 mASR: Zigbee
 [49]attachmentCO 2 ,T, H5.07 daysSR: Zigbee
 [50]waist-wornNH 3 , NO 2 , C 7 H 8 NASR: BLE
 [51]wrist-wornO 3 , T, HNAExt. mem.
 [52]arm-bandethanol (C 2 H 5 OH)NASR: Bluetooth
 [53]waist-wornO 3 , dust, T, HNAExt. mem.
 [54]waist-worn or chest-wornO 3 , PM (2.5, 10), T150.96 mAExt. mem.
MyPart [55]wrist-wornPM (2.5, 10), T, H75 mASR: BLE
 [56]arm-bandVoCsNASR: Bluetooth
 [57]waist-wornCO, NO 2 , SO 2 , T, H, P18 mA, 65 hSR: Bluetooth
 [58]arm-bandCO 2 , NO, PMNASR: Bluetooth
 [59]waist-wornCO, T, PNASR: Zigbee
Citisense [60]waist-wornNO 2 , CO, O 3 , T, H, P5daysSR: Bluetooth
SiNOxSense [61]attachmentNO x 110.5 mA, 9 hSR: Bluetooth
iEGAS [62]waist-wornSO 2 , T, HNAExt. mem.
 [26]arm-bandVoCs, T, H10 hSR: Bluetooth
MAQS [63]arm-bandCO 2 , T, H, light5.5 to 24 hSR: Bluetooth, ext. mem.
 [64]arm-bandtotal hydrocarbons, total acids, T, H9 hSR: Bluetooth
Wear-Air [65]T-shirtVoCsNANA
 [66]bootCO 2 5 hSR: Zigbee
 [67]arm-bandVoCs, T, HNASR: Bluetooth
Table 3. Wearable devices in environmental monitoring (G1): part II.
Table 3. Wearable devices in environmental monitoring (G1): part II.
DeviceSampling Rate (H)Resolution/LoD/CoverageApplicationData Usage
Fresh Air [34]NA>180 g/mol in working temp 4 °C to 23 °Casthma managementinternal memory
[35]NA30 ppb to 10 ppmasthma managementcloud/server
[36]10-min time interval80 mL/min air flow, 300 ppb to 5 ppmenvironmentalinternal memory
W-Air [37]2 HzVOC sensor: 0 to 1187 ppbair pollutioncloud/server
WE-Safe [38]NACO 2 : 0 ppm to 10,000 ppmenvironmental for safety applicationscloud/server
WE-Safe [39]NACO 2 : 0 to 10,000 ppm. T: −45 °C to +85 °C. H: 0 to 100%, UV: 1 to 11 indexenvironmental for safety applicationscloud/server
[40]NACO: 0 ppm to 0.5 ppm, CO: 0 ppm to 2000 ppm, temp.: −40 °C to +85 °C, P: 300 hpa to 1100 hpaenvironmental at micro climate scalePC
[41]NANAmonitoring environmental for workers in gas and oil industriesinternal memory
[42]350 mL\minT: −45 °C to 125 °C. H: 0 to 100% RHenvironmental air qualitycloud/server
[43]NANAair qualitysmartphone
[44]NANAair qualitycloud/server
[45]25 HzNAair qualitysmartphone
[46]10 Hz4 ppm in liquid phasemonitoring of explosive and nerve-agent threats in vapor and liquid phasesPC
[47]0.5 HzNAair qualitycloud/server
[48]NACO 2 : 0 ppm to 10,000 ppmenvironmentalcloud/server
[49]NACO 2 : 0 ppm to 50,000 ppm, T: −40 °C to +124 °C, H: 0 to 100% RHair quality in industrial environmentsPC
[50]350 mL\min(in test)C7H8 (10 ppm exposure in test), NO2 & NH 3 (1000 ppm exposure in test)air pollutionsmartphone
[51]NANAair qualityinternal memory
[52]NA1 ppm, 1 to 200 ppmtesting drunk driverssmartphone
[53]NANAair pollutioninternal memory
[54]NAO 3 0 ppm to 20 ppm, temp.: 0 °C to 100 °Crespiratory diseaseinternal memory
MyPart [55]NANAair qualitysmartphone
[56]NA1 ppmair qualitysmartphone
[57]1 HzP: 50 KPa to 115 KPa. CO: 0 ppm to 13 ppm, SO 2 : 0 ppm to 10 ppm. NO 2 : 0 ppm to 27 ppmair qualitysmartphone
[58]NANAair qualitycloud/server
[59]NAtemp.: −55 °C to +150 °Cindustries and coal mines & homesPC
Citisense [60]NANAair qualitycloud/server
SiNOxSense [61]NANAair qualitysmartphone
iEGAS [62]NANAenvironmentalinternal memory
[26]1 Hz4 ppb to 1000 ppm, T: 5 °C to 46 °C, H: 0 to 100% RHenvironmentalsmartphone
MAQS [63]NANAindoor air qualitycloud/server
[64]NA1 ppb, Max. T: 42.2 °C, H: 0 to 100% RHenvironmentalsmartphone
Wear-Air [65]NANAair quality & environmentalinternal memory
[66]NACO 2 : 0 ppm to 42,800 ppmenvironmental in hazardous worksPC
[67]NA1 ppb, max. T: 23.8 °C, max. H: 100% RHenvironmentalsmartphone
In addition, only some of the developers have reported the final cost of the prototypes, which encompasses fabrication, components, and layout design. References [68,69,70,71] have reported 150$, 130$, 150$, and 140$ as the final cost of the prototypes, respectively.
We address principles, features and specifications, and application of G2 wearable devices in Table 4 and Table 5, if available.
Table 4. Wearable devices for simultaneous monitoring of environmental and behavioral domains (G2): part I.
Table 4. Wearable devices for simultaneous monitoring of environmental and behavioral domains (G2): part I.
DeviceWearabilityParametersEnergy ConsumptionData Transmission
ART [68]wrist-wornO 3 , TVoC, T, H, acceleration18 h to 48 hSR: BLE, ext. mem.
MLMS-EMGN-5.1 [69]wrist-wornSO 2 , NO 2 , CO, T, H, motion tracking, P, SL28 h,15.8 mASR: BLE, ext. mem.
 [72]waist-wornCO 2 , T, H, P, motion tracking, altitude300 mWSR: Bluetooth
AMAS [73]waist-wornPM 2.5 , oxidative potential(OP), light, acceleration14 hSR: Bluetooth, ext. mem.
 [74]waist-wornCO, CH 4 , acceleration1.6 WSR: Zigbee
UPAS [70]waist-wornPM 2.5 , T, H, P, UV, acceleration25 h to 43 hSR: BLE, ext. mem.
 [75]wrist-wornCO, NO 2 , O 3 ,SO 2 , T, H, UV, motion tracking3 daysSR: BLE, ext. mem.
Eco-Mini [76]waist-wornVoCs, O 3 , SO 2 , T, H, SL, light, acceleration6 h to 12 daysSR: Bluetooth, ext. mem.
 [71]waist-wornO 3 , PM, accelerationNAext. mem.
Table 5. Wearable devices for simultaneous monitoring of environmental and behavioral domains (G2): part II.
Table 5. Wearable devices for simultaneous monitoring of environmental and behavioral domains (G2): part II.
DeviceSampling Rate (H)Resolution/LoD/CoverageApplicationData Usage
ART [68]NAO3: 10 ppb, VOC: 0.3 ppm to 30 ppm, O 3 : 10 ppb to 60 ppbasthma managementcloud/server
MLMS-EMGN-5.1 [69]motion tracking sensor: 50 Hz, CO and NO 2 : 0.2 Hz, UV index: 1 Hz, sound level: 2 HzNO 2 : 0.1 ppm, CO: 7.5 ppm, NO 2 : 0 ppm to 7 ppm, CO: 0 ppm to 1650 ppmenvironmentalsmartphone
 [72]NANAenvironmentalsmartphone
AMAS [73]NANAenvironmental for school age studentssmartphone
 [74]1 HzNAenvironmentalsmartphone
UPAS [70]NACH 4 : 0 ppm to 25 ppm, CO: 0 ppm to 30,000 ppmtoxic gases monitoring in oil and gas industriesPC
 [75]3 modes: 1 L\min & 2 L\min & 3 L\min air flow10 to 25 genvironmentalsmartphone
Eco-Mini [76]NANAenvironmental and activitycloud/server
 [71]NANAair qualityPC

3.3. Environmental, Behavioral, and Physiological Monitoring

G3 wearable devices measure 3 domains. We follow the same policy with G2 and give the concentration to the environmental and physiological domains to present the results. Temperature and humidity are measured by 9 and 7 devices, respectively. Air pollutants, including CO 2 , CO, and NO 2 , are measured by 4, 3, and 2 devices, respectively. The physical environmental parameters consist of UV, pressure, and sound level, as well as particle matter, VoCs, O 3 , and O 2 are integrated, each in 1 device (Figure 4, right).
Extending the monitoring to the physiological domain shows that vital signals are the highest priority. Heart rate (HR), skin temperature (ST), and breathing rate (BR) each is measured by 8, 6, and 3 devices, respectively. Skin impedance (SI), Electroencephalography (EEG), Photoplethysmogram (PPG), and pulse oximetry (SpO 2 ) sensors, are integrated, each in 1 device (Figure 4).
In G3, the number of domains is three, thus, it is expected the degree of convenience is reduced reflected in mode of wearability. Forty-five percent (4) of the devices are worn as the garment, 11% (1) of the devices are worn on wrist, and 44% (4) of the devices classified as others (distributed approaches and attached to users) (Figure 7, top-left).
BLE is the most used protocol, in 55% (5) of the devices, followed by Zigbee in 45% (4) of the devices. One device is not specified the protocol (Figure 7, top-right).
Forty-five percent (4) of the devices, transmit the data to a cloud/server. Forty-four percent (4) of the devices transmit the data to a PC, and 11% (1) of the devices transmit the data to a smartphone (Figure 7, bottom-left). Fifty-six (5), 33% (3), and 11% (1) of the devices are used for specific diagnostics, disease management, and non-medical, respectively (Figure 7, bottom-right).
Authors in Reference [77] have reported 133 € as the final cost of the prototype. We review the principles, features and specifications, and applications of G3 devices in Table 6 and Table 7.
Table 6. Wearable devices for simultaneous monitoring of environmental, behavioral, and physiological domains (G3): part I.
Table 6. Wearable devices for simultaneous monitoring of environmental, behavioral, and physiological domains (G3): part I.
DeviceWearabilityParametersEnergy ConsumptionData Transmission
 [77]wrist-wornCO, NO 2 , T, H, P, UV, SL, motion tracking, ST, HR18.35 mA, 12.53 hSR: BLE, ext. mem
 [78]2 parts: attachmentCO 2 , T, H, UV, ST, HRNASR: BLE, LR: LoRa
 [79]garmentCO, T, posture, HRNASR: Zigbee
 [80]2 parts: waist-worn and chest-wornPM 2.5 , 10 , T, H, light, BR, accelerationNASR: BLE, ext. mem.
 [81]3 parts:wrist-worn, chest-worn, and spiromerterO 3 , VoC, motion, T, H, HR, BR, SI, PPG, ECG, motion0.83 mW (wrist-worn)SR: BLE
 [82]garmentCO 2 , T, HR, ST, accelerationNASR: Zigbee
 [83]helmetCO 2 ,O 2 , T, H, P, HR, ST0.5 ASR: Zigbee
 [84]garmentNO 2 , T, H, HR, ST, movementNASR: BAN wireless communication
 [85]garment, pair of bootsCO 2 , CO, T, H, BR, HR, ST, oxygen saturation, position, posture, motion7 hSR: Zigbee
Table 7. Wearable devices for simultaneous monitoring of environmental, behavioral, and physiological domains (G3): part II.
Table 7. Wearable devices for simultaneous monitoring of environmental, behavioral, and physiological domains (G3): part II.
DeviceSampling Rate (H)Resolution/LoD/CoverageApplicationData Usage
 [77]CO and NO 2 : 1 Hz, SL: 2 Hz, UV index: 1 Hz, ST: 15 s time interval, PPG: 15 s time interval, motion sensors: 50 HzNO 2 :1 ppm, CO: 5 ppm, SL: 1 dB, UV: 1 index, ST: 1 °C, pressure: 1 hpa, temp.: 1 °C, H: 1% RH/ SL: 32 db to 85 dB, NO 2 : 0 ppm to 52.8 ppm, CO: 0 ppm to 1680 ppm, UV index: 0 to 9COPD diseasesmartphone
 [78]NANAsafety & health for industrial workerscloud/server
 [79]NANAfirefightersPC
 [80]NANAasthma & COPD diseasecloud/server
 [81]VOC: 0.02 Hz, T & H: 10 Hz. PPG & accelerometer: 30 Hz. ECG:50 HzNArespiratory diseasecloud/server
 [82]NANAfirefighterscloud/server
 [83]NACO 2 :100 ppm to 600 ppm, O 2 : 18.5 to 22%, T: 10 °C to 40 °C, ST: 35 °C to 39 °C, P: 0.8 Bar to 1.2 Bar, H: 10% RH to 90% RHwork inharsh environments (mining)PC
 [84]NANO 2 : 0.1 ppm/ NO 2 : 0 ppm to 10 ppmfirefightersPC
 [85]NANAfirefightersPC

4. Discussion

The four influencing domains are interwoven; thus, simultaneous monitoring is essential for comprehensive evaluation of the subject health. Air pollutants, including toxic, hazardous gases, and particular matter, influence the disease, such as cardiovascular, lung cancer, and respiratory. The risks of exposing to such pollutants have been already well identified and documented. New research has been conducted to evaluate the effect of air pollutants on the brain and mental illness (e.g., depression). The research shows the correlation between psychological status of subjects with air pollution. In the other words, higher level of air pollutants reduces the time that subject spent outdoor. Decreasing the physical activities outside consequently leads to worsening the psychological distress, including limited exposure to sunlight and social isolation [86,87,88,89].

4.1. Current Status of Wearables

Wearables are major means of personalized health monitoring for proactive healthcare [90,91,92]. The state of the art is concentrated on WBAN consisting several wearables interacting and transmitting data through the mesh/star topology to a gateway and eventually to a cloud/server for data fusion, analysis, and decision-making [93,94]. However, several limitations still exist, including wearability [95], power consumption [96], data accuracy [97], frequent calibration [98], restriction of data transmission [99], user privacy [100], and data security [95].
Due to importance of environmental domain, and its interactions with the other domains [101], we have categorized current wearable sensor systems into the groups G1 to G4, all including the environmental domain. Thus, it is expected to have the highest number of parameters from the environmental domain in the all groups. However, more often the wearable devices have been only used in short periods, e.g., a clinical trial, as they suffer from reliability, accuracy, and cannot support sufficient effective data on particular diseases [102].

4.1.1. Application in Reactive and Proactive Healthcare

Ludwig et al. categorize the application of wearables into reactive healthcare (handling adverse conditions and events) and proactive healthcare (assessing the state of health) [103]. Automated fall or cardiac emergency detection are reactive healthcare and may lead to emergency calls. Monitoring known disease, for instance, are proactive healthcare. Therefore, simultaneous monitoring of environmental (e.g., air quality), behavioral (e.g., physical activity), and physiological parameters (e.g., heart rate, skin temperature) in combination the parameters from the psychological domain (e.g., emotion) can proactively assess the status (or status changes) of user health to predict and alert “long before occurrence” (principle 1,2: complete and continuous) [15]. However, the user must decide to use wearables daily and recharge and interconnect them as required by the devices. Costs and Convenience widely impact the acceptance of wearables [104,105,106].
Tracing the wearables between 2009 and 2020 shows the significant growth of devices in the area of specific application and disease management rather than general applications. In the same manner, investigation on the general application of devices in G1, G2, and G3 indicate reducing the devices from 24 to 6 and eventually zero in G3 devices. Similarly, disease and specific application devices have grown their share from 3 in G2 to 8 in G3 devices (Figure 8, bottom line view, left). In particular, References [77,80,81] have been designed for monitoring COPD, asthma, and respiratory disease, respectively. Besides, References [79,82,84,85] have been designed for firefighters which are applied in health and safety (H&S). Considering the number of devices and applications, G3 is the most disease and specific application. Having said that, we studied the most influencing factors in structuring G3, resulting in greater correlated diverse heterogeneous data, BLE data transmission, garment and wrist-worn monitoring, and device → gateway → cloud. This supports acceptance of growing role of wearables in proactive healthcare. We have visualized the impact of different factors on devices to construct G3 and their application (Figure 9).
Our study shows the number of devices ascending from 2 to 12 between 2009 and 2018 (Figure 8, top-left). This supports the statement that our healthcare systems currently transits from treatment after diagnosis towards prediction, prevention, and proactive personalized healthcare [107]. Enhancing the penetration rate of wearables in real studies requires user and physician satisfactions [22]. Thus, as a matter of fact, improving continuous monitoring is impacted by reducing the power consumption, which is consequently function of mode of data transmission. The statistics between 2009 and 2019 indicate the increasing share of BLE in data transmission (Figure 8, second line, left). Besides, wrist-worn devices, as the most convenient mode of wearability have jumped to the top in 2019 (Figure 8, second line, right). Weight of the wearables as an important factor has been relatively reduced such that the wearables have been improved from 2011 to 2019 by reducing the weight from 251 g to 52 g, approximately.
Although information on the costs of the prototypes is insufficient, the general range is about 140 US$. Such a range may fit to user’s expectations and significantly motivates contributors to turn prototypes into products.Nevertheless, wearables are must contribute in to decision-making. This is accomplished by automated data fusion of multiple sensors from different domains. In general, the transition of wearables from G1 to G3 is accompanied with increasing average number of measurement from 3.5 to 7.6 parameters per device (Figure 8, bottom-right). The total number of parameters from 2009 to 2018 has grown from 4 to 56 (Figure 8, top-right), showing that wearable devices increase their role in proactive healthcare by extending their domain and range of monitoring.

4.1.2. Big Data and Integration of Wearables into Healthcare Systems

Bid data is often described by four Vs, volume (feature: sampling rate and power consumption), velocity (feature: data transmission), variety (principle: complete), and veracity (feature: resolution and LoD). Wearables have the capability and potential to generate big data. The battery power is the most limiting factor of data volume and complexity. A trade-off between sampling and transmission rates is required to restrict the power consumption [108]. However, not all developers sufficient information (e.g., experimental data on battery volume or current leakage) on the operating time of the devices. Thus, we cannot conclude quantitatively but rather qualitatively: As the number of monitoring domains and parameters have increased, the sampling rate, rate of data transmission, and/or wearability have been optimized, depending on the particular application.
In addition, care delivery, supporting real-time physician’s feedback, and telemedicine requires bidirectional communication. Therefore, data usage (propagation) potentially impacts and drives wearables towards integration and application [109]. Their potential of generating big data opens wearables to external healthcare systems, such as hospitals or rescue teams. The data transmission from devices → personalized gateway → cloud/server and from a device → smartphone have reached from 1 to 3 and from 0 to 4 in 2018 and 2019, respectively (Figure 8, third line, left). Personalized gateways are embedded in the short and long terms [110]. We expect further increase of smartphone as personalized gateway in telemedicine and penetration in remote regions. Additionally, moving toward 5G network further highlight the future role of smartphone as personalized gateways improving the efficiency of data transmission by reducing the data loss and faster delivery [111].

4.2. Future Group of Wearables (G4)

Although, the transition from distributed wearable systems to integrated centralized wearable systems is traced from G1 to G3, the devices are still lacking complete monitoring of healthcare and well-being, which required complete monitoring of all four WHO domains. Therefore, the psychological domain needs particular attention in future wearables [112,113].
However, simply delivering raw data to physicians without meaningful interpretation does not accelerate decision-making [114]. Hence, the fourth group of wearables (G4) further demands a customized and quantified output with respect to disease and user’s health status. This personalization enables a meaningful contribution to the decision-making of physicians [22]. Following this approach, we propose simultaneous monitoring of all four influencing domains, followed by a two-layer filter and computations of parameters’ interactions (Figure 10). In the first step, parameters from all four domains are considered. We suggest to measure and quantify the output with respect to the target disease and the customized profile of the patient/user. The first filter is disease profile. It includes numbers of disease profiles and is uniquely proposed to be structured according to each disease [115]. Each disease profile must include the factors describing the disease comprehensively. Comparison of the disease profile with the incoming measured parameters that the user is exposed to, leads to filtering the non-effective parameters, alleviate the less effective parameters, and gives higher weights to effective parameters. Therefore, the number of parameters might be changed and the influencing coefficient of ENV i , BEH j Please define if appropriate. , PHY k , and PSY m are added to each parameter.
The second filter highlights parameters as effective according to the user’s profile [116]. All important information such as the anamnesis are recorded in this profile. The vital signs of the user are monitored for a limited period of time to identify drifts out of the user’s normal range. We expect that the incoming parameters are treated differently with respect to physiological status of the user.
In the last step, the most impacting parameters are correlated. The impact of each parameter is calculated within and across the four domains. The output is dynamic for a particular disease and user. It covers five ranges: regular (healthy), abnormal, pathological, crucial (warning), and exceptional (emergency). It is quantified from 1 to 100 indicating the risk of emergency. The output value significantly indicates to both users and physicians the necessary steps to take in prevention and treatment.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, simultaneous monitoring of the environmental, behavioral, physiological, and psychological domains is desirable due to mutual interactions among the domains and their parameters. We have considered the environmental domain as a central player, which independently influences the other domains. According to these interwoven domains, we have categorized wearables into groups (G1 to G4). Existing wearables show a significant contribution of G3 devices for disease management (e.g., COPD and asthma) and, therefore, proactive healthcare. Increasing the penetration rate of smartphone as personalized gateway supports the integration of wearables into our healthcare systems for real-time assessment of user’s health and immediate care delivery. We propose future wearables to focus on integration of parameters from the psychological domain.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H.; methodology, M.H., T.M.D.; validation, M.H., S.A.; formal analysis, M.H., S.A.; investigation, M.H., S.A., S.D.; resources, M.H., S.A., S.D.; data curation, M.H., S.A.; visualization, M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H.; writing—review and editing, M.H., S.A., S.D., J.W., R.A., T.M.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work partly was funded by the Lower Saxony Ministry of Science and Culture under grant number ZN3491 within the Lower Saxony “Vorab“ of the Volkswagen Foundation and supported by the Center for Digital Innovations (ZDIN). We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publication Funds of the Technische Universität Braunschweig.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO: Ambient (Outdoor) Air Pollution. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health (accessed on 9 September 2020).
  2. WHO: Household Air Pollution: Health Impacts. Available online: https://www.who.int/airpollution/household/health-impacts/en/ (accessed on 9 September 2020).
  3. Wiedinmyer, C.; Yokelson, R.J.; Gullett, B.K. Global emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 9523–9530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yao, S.; Swetha, P.; Zhu, Y. Nanomaterial-Enabled wearable sensors for healthcare. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018, 7, 1700889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Swoap, S.; Overton, J.; Garber, G. Effect of ambient temperature on cardiovascular parameters in rats and mice: A comparative approach. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2004, 287, R391–R396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Monroy, E.; Omnès, F.; Calle, F. Wide-bandgap semiconductor ultraviolet photodetectors. Semicond. Sci. Technol. 2003, 18, R33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nakazawa, H.; English, D.; Randell, P.L.; Nakazawa, K.; Martel, N.; Armstrong, B.K.; Yamasaki, H. UV and skin cancer: Specific p53 gene mutation in normal skin as a biologically relevant exposure measurement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1994, 91, 360–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Stansfeld, S.A.; Matheson, M.P. Noise pollution: Non-auditory effects on health. Br. Med. Bull. 2003, 68, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Au, L.; Batalin, M.; Stathopoulos, T.; Bui, A.; Kaiser, W. Episodic sampling: Towards energy-efficient patient monitoring with wearable sensors. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2009, 2009, 6901–6905. [Google Scholar]
  10. Group, W. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc. Sci. Med. 1995, 41, 1403–1409. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chashchin, V.; Siurin, S.; Gudkov, A.; Popova, O.; Voronin, A. Influence of industrial pollution of ambient air on health of workers engaged into open air activities in cold conditions. Med. Tr. Prom Ekol. 2014, 20–26. [Google Scholar]
  12. Silva, B.M.; Rodrigues, J.J.; de la Torre Díez, I.; López-Coronado, M.; Saleem, K. Mobile-Health: A review of current state in 2015. J. Biomed. Inform. 2015, 56, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Mair, F.S.; May, C.; O’Donnell, C.; Finch, T.; Sullivan, F.; Murray, E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: An explanatory systematic review. Bull. World Health Organ. 2012, 90, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Al-Turjman, F.; Nawaz, M.H.; Ulusar, U.D. Intelligence in the Internet of medical things era: A systematic review of current and future trends. Comput. Commun. 2020, 150, 644–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Deserno, T.M. Transforming smart vehicles and smart homes into private diagnostic spaces. In Proceedings of the 2020 2nd Asia Pacific Information Technology Conference, Bali Island, Indonesia, 17–19 January 2020; pp. 165–171. [Google Scholar]
  16. Haghi, M.; Neubert, S.; Geissler, A.; Fleischer, H.; Stoll, N.; Stoll, R.; Thurow, K. A flexible and pervasive IoT based healthcare platform for physiological and environmental parameters monitoring. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 7, 5628–5647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jovanov, E. Wearables Meet IoT: Synergistic Personal Area Networks (SPANs). Sensors 2019, 19, 4295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Alonso, S.G.; de la Torre Díez, I.; Zapiraín, B.G. Predictive, personalized, preventive and participatory (4P) medicine applied to telemedicine and eHealth in the literature. J. Med. Syst. 2019, 43, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Inomata, T.; Sung, J.; Nakamura, M.; Fujisawa, K.; Muto, K.; Ebihara, N.; Iwagami, M.; Nakamura, M.; Fujio, K.; Okumura, Y.; et al. New medical big data for P4 medicine on allergic conjunctivitis. Allergol Int. 2020, 69, 32651122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Guillemin, F.; Bombardier, C.; Beaton, D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J. Clin. Epid. 1993, 46, 1417–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hood, L.; Flores, M. A personal view on systems medicine and the emergence of proactive P4 medicine: Predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory. N. Biotechnol. 2012, 29, 613–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Haghi, M.; Deserno, T.M. General conceptual framework of future wearables in healthcare: Unified, unique, ubiquitous, and unobtrusive (U4) for customized quantified output. Chemosensors 2020, 8, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Diamond, D.; Coyle, S.; Scarmagnani, S.; Hayes, J. Wireless sensor networks and chemo-/biosensing. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 652–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lozano, J.; Suárez, J.; Arroyo, P.; Ordiales, J.; Álvarez, F. Wireless sensor network for indoor air quality. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2012, 30, 319–324. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bhattacharya, S.; Sridevi, S.; Pitchiah, R. Indoor air quality monitoring using wireless sensor network. In Proceedings of the 2012 Sixth International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST), Kolkata, India, 18–21 December 2012; pp. 422–427. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen, C.; Driggs-Campbell, K.; Negi, I.; Iglesias, R.; Owens, P.; Tao, N.; Tsow, F.; Forzani, E.S. A new sensor for the assessment of personal exposure to volatile organic compounds. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 54, 679–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Jovanov, E. A survey of power efficient technologies for wireless body area networks. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 20–24 August 2008; p. 3628. [Google Scholar]
  28. Yi, W.; Lo, K.; Mak, T.; Leung, K.; Leung, Y.; Meng, M. A survey of wireless sensor network based air pollution systems. Sensors 2015, 15, 31392–31427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Rajanna, V.; Lara-Garduno, R.; Behera, D.J.; Madanagopal, K.; Goldberg, D.; Hammond, T. Step up Life: A Context Aware Health Assistant. In Proceedings of the HealthGIS’14, Third ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on the Use of GIS in Public Health, Dallas, TX, USA, 4 November 2014; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  30. Banerjee, S.; Hemphill, T.; Longstreet, P. Wearable devices and healthcare: Data sharing and privacy. Inf. Soc. 2017, 34, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Wu, R.; Liaqat, D.; deLara, E.; Son, T.; Rudzicz, F.; Alshaer, H.; Abed-Esfahani, P.; Gershon, A.S. Feasibility of using a smartwatch to intensively monitor patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Prospective cohort study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2018, 6, e10046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kyriakou, K.; Resch, B.; Sagl, G.; Petutschnig, A.; Werner, C.; Niederseer, D.; Liedlgruber, M.; Wilhelm, F.H.; Osborne, T.; Pykett, J. Detecting moments of stress from measurements of wearable physiological sensors. Sensors 2019, 19, 3805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Niknejad, N.; Ismail, W.B.; Mardani, A.; Liao, H.; Ghani, I. A comprehensive overview of smart wearables: The state of the art literature, recent advances, and future challenges. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 90, 103529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lin, E.Z.; Esenther, S.; Mascelloni, M.; Irfan, F.; GodriPollitt, K.J. The fresh air wristband: A wearable air pollutant sampler. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2020, 7, 308–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dong, Q.; Li, B.; Downen, R.S.; Tran, N.; Chorvinsky, E.; Pillai, D.; Zaghloul, M.; Li, Z. Wearable and stationary point-of-care IoT air pollution sensors for pediatric Asthma research and management*. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Healthcare Innovations and Point of Care Technologies, (HI-POCT), Bethesda, MD, USA, 20–22 November 2019; pp. 123–126. [Google Scholar]
  36. Fung, A.; Rajapakse, M.; Mccartney, M.; Falcon, A.; Fabia, F.; Kenyon, N.; Davis, E. Wearable environmental monitor to quantify personal ambient volatile organic compound exposures. ACS Sens. 2019, 4, 1358–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Maag, B.; Zhou, Z.; Thiele, L. W-Air: Enabling personal air pollution on wearables. Proc. ACM Interact Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2018, 2, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wu, F.; Rüdiger, C.; Redouté, J.; Yuce, M.R. WE-Safe: A wearable IoT sensor node for safety applications via LoRa. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 4th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Singapore, 5–8 February 2018; pp. 144–148. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wu, F.; Redouté, J.; Yuce, M.R. WE-Safe: A self-powered wearable IoT sensor network for safety applications based on LoRa. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 40846–40853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pigliautile, I.; Pisello, A.L. A new wearable monitoring system for investigating pedestrians’ environmental conditions: Development of the experimental tool and start-up findings. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 690–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Spirjakin, D.; Baranov, A.; Akbari, S. Wearable wireless sensor system with RF remote activation for gas monitoring applications. IEEE Sens. J. 2018, 18, 2976–2982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Suárez, J.; Arroyo, P.; Lozano, J.; Agustín, J.L.; Padilla, M. Bluetooth gas sensing module combined with smartphones for air quality monitoring. Chemosphere 2018, 205, 618–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ionascu, M.; Gruicin, I.; Marcu, M. Towards wearable air quality monitoring systems—Initial assessments on newly developed sensors. In Proceedings of the 2018 26th Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR), Belgrade, Serbia, 20–21 November 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ionascu, M.; Gruicin, I.; Marcu, M. Laboratory evaluation and calibration of low-cost sensors for air quality measurement. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI), Timisoara, Romania, 17–19 May 2018; pp. 330–333. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, R.; Ravi, D.; Yang, G.; Lo, B. A personalized air quality sensing system—A preliminary study on assessing the air quality of London underground stations. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 14th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks (BSN), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 5–9 December 2017; pp. 111–114. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sempionatto, J.; Mishra, R.; Martin, A.; Tang, G.; Nakagawa, T.; Lu, X.; Campbell, A.S.; Lyu, K.M.; Wang, J. Wearable ring-based sensing platform for detecting chemical threats. ACS Sens. 2017, 2, 1531–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Hojaiji, H.; Goldstein, O.; King, C.E.; Sarrafzadeh, M.; Jerrett, M. Design and calibration of a wearable and wireless research grade air quality monitoring system for real-time data collection. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), San Jose, CA, USA, 19–22 October 2017; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wu, F.; Rüdiger, C.; Redouté, J.M.; Yuce, M.R. A wearable multi-sensor IoT network system for environmental monitoring. In Advances in Body Area Networks I; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 29–38. [Google Scholar]
  49. Antolín, D.; Medrano-Marqués, N.; Calvo, B.; Pérez, F. A wearable wireless sensor network for indoor smart environment monitoring in safety applications. Sensors 2017, 17, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chiou, J.C.; Wu, C.C. A wearable and wireless gas-sensing system using flexible polymer/multi-walled Carbon nanotube composite films. Polymers 2017, 9, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Fan, D.; Gong, J.; Ghaemmaghami, B.; Zhang, A.; Lach, J.; Peden, D.B. Characterizing and calibrating low-cost wearable Ozone sensors in dynamic environments. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies (CHASE), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 17–19 July 2017; pp. 300–301. [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, L.; Fu, C.; Lou, Z.; Chen, S.; Han, W.; Jiang, K.; Chen, D.; Shen, G. Flexible planar concentric circular micro-supercapacitor arrays for wearable gas sensing application. Nano Energy 2017, 41, 216–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dam, N.; Ricketts, A.; Catlett, B.; Henriques, J. Wearable sensors for analyzing personal exposure to air pollution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS), Charlottesville, VI, USA, 28 April 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  54. Stevenson, P.E.; Arafa, H.; Ozev, S.; Ross, H.M.; Christen, J.B. Toward wearable, crowd-sourced air quality monitoring for respiratory disease. In Proceedings of the IEEE Healthcare Innovations and Point of Care Technologies (HI-POCT), Bethesda, MD, USA, 6–8 November 2017; pp. 140–143. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tian, R.; Dierk, C.; Myers, C.; Paulos, E. MyPart: Personal, portable, accurate, airborne particle counting. In Proceedings of the CHI 2016: The 34th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; pp. 1338–1348. [Google Scholar]
  56. Deng, Y.; Chen, C.; Xian, X.; Tsow, F.; Verma, G.; McConnell, R.; Fruin, S.; Tao, N.; Forzani, E.S. A novel wireless wearable volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring device with disposable sensors. Sensors 2016, 16, 2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Oletic, D.; Bilas, V. Design of sensor node for air quality crowdsensing. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS), Zadar, Croatia, 13–15 April 2015; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  58. Rizea, D.; Olteanu, A.; Tudose, D. Air quality data collection and processing platform. In Proceedings of the 2014 RoEduNet Conference 13th Edition: Networking in Education and Research Joint Event RENAM 8th Conference, Chisinau, Moldova, 11–13 September 2014; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  59. Chandra, D.; Vidyabharathy, J. Wearable Carbon Monoxide warning system using wireless sensors. Transportation 2014, 9, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bales, E.; Nikzad, N.; Quick, N.; Ziftci, C.; Patrick, K.; Griswold, W. Citisense: Mobile air quality sensing for individuals and communities design and deployment of the Citisense mobile air-quality system. In Proceedings of the 2012 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth) and Workshops, San Diego, CA, USA, 21–24 May 2012; pp. 155–158. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hansen, K. SiNOxSense: A textile-based wearable simple NOx sensing system. Eval. Perv. Comput. Cou. 2012, 12, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  62. Li, H.; Mu, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, X.; Guo, M.; Jin, R.; Zeng, X.; Mason, A.J. Wearable autonomous microsystem with electrochemical gas sensor array for real-time health and safety monitoring. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, San Diego, CA, USA, 28 August–1 September 2012; pp. 503–506. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jiang, Y.; Li, K.; Tian, L.; Piedrahita, R.; Yun, X.; Mansata, O.; Lv, Q.; Dick, R.P.; Hannigan, M.; Shang, L. MAQS: A personalized mobile sensing system for indoor air quality monitoring. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Beijing, China, 12–15 September 2011; pp. 271–280. [Google Scholar]
  64. Negi, I.; Tsow, F.; Tanwar, K.; Zhang, L.; Iglesias, R.; Chen, C.; Rai, A.; Forzani, E.S.; Tao, N. Novel monitor paradigm for real-time exposure assessment. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Kim, S.; Paulos, E.; Gross, M. WearAir: Expressive t-shirts for air quality sensing. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Cambridge, MA, USA, 24–27 January 2010; pp. 295–296. [Google Scholar]
  66. Radu, T.; Fay, C.; Lau, K.; Waite, R.; Diamond, D. Wearable sensing application- carbon dioxide monitoring for emergency personnel using wearable sensors. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Systems Engineering, Venice, Italy, 28–30 October 2009; pp. 12–18. [Google Scholar]
  67. Tsow, F.; Forzani, E.; Rai, A.; Wang, R.; Tsui, R.; Mastroianni, S.; Knobbe, C.; Gandolfi, A.J.; Tao, N.J. A Wearable and wireless sensor system for real-time monitoring of toxic environmental volatile organic compounds. IEEE Sens J. 2009, 9, 1734–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mallires, K.R.; Wang, D.; Tipparaju, V.V.; Tao, N. Developing a low-cost wearable personal exposure monitor for studying respiratory diseases using metal—Oxide sensors. IEEE Sens J. 2019, 19, 8252–8261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Haghi, M.; Stoll, R.; Thurow, K. Pervasive and personalized ambient parameters monitoring: A wearable, modular, and configurable watch. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 20126–20143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Volckens, J.; Quinn, C.; Leith, D.; Mehaffy, J.; Henry, C.; Miller-Lionberg, D. Development and evaluation of an ultrasonic personal aerosol sampler (UPAS). Indoor Air 2016, 27, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Henriques, J.J.; Bojarski, B.; Byrd, K.W.; Von Wald, M. Crowd-sourcing urban air-quality in developing countries through open source technologies. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), Seattle, WD, USA, 29 October–1 November 2013; pp. 447–451. [Google Scholar]
  72. Serbanescu, M.; Placinta, V.M.; Hutanu, O.E.; Ravariu, C. Smart, low power, wearable multi-sensor data acquisition system for environmental monitoring. In Proceedings of the 2017 10th International Symposium on Advanced Topics in Electrical Engineering (ATEE), Bucharest, Romania, 23–25 March 2017; pp. 118–123. [Google Scholar]
  73. Quinn, C.; Miller-Lionberg, D.; Klunder, K.; Kwon, J.; Noth, E.; Mehaffy, J.; Leith, D.; Magzamen, S.; Hammond, S.K.; Henry, C.S.; et al. Personal exposure to PM 2.5 black Carbon and aerosol oxidative potential using an automated microenvironmental aerosol sampler (AMAS). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Binajjaj, A.; Sheltami, T.; Aliyu, F.; Koasar, M. Design and implementation of a wearable gas sensor network for Oil and gas industry workers. Comput. J. 2018, 13, 300–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cho, H. Personal Environmental Monitoring System and network platform. In Proceedings of the 2015 9th International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST), Auckland, New Zealand, 8–10 December 2015; pp. 751–756. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fletcher, R.R.; Oreskovic, N.M.; Robinson, A.I. Design and clinical feasibility of personal wearable monitor for measurement of activity and environmental exposure. In Proceedings of the 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Chicago, IL, USA, 26–30 August 2014; pp. 874–877. [Google Scholar]
  77. Haghi, M.; Danyali, S.; Thurow, K.; Warnecke, J.M.; Wang, J.; Deserno, T.M. Hardware prototype for wrist-worn simultaneous monitoring of environmental, behavioral, and physiological parameters. Appl Sci. 2020, 10, 5470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wu, F.; Wu, T.; Yuce, M.R. Design and implementation of a wearable sensor network system for IoT-connected safety and health applications. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 5th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Limerick, Ireland, 15–18 April 2019; pp. 87–90. [Google Scholar]
  79. Caya, M.V.C.; Casaje, J.S.; Catapang, G.B.; Dan, R.A.V.; Linsangan, N.B. Warning system for firefighters using e-textile. In Proceedings of the 2018 3rd International Conference on Computer and Communication Systems (ICCCS), Nagoya, Japan 27–30 April 2018; pp. 362–366. [Google Scholar]
  80. Arvind, D.K.; Bates, C.A.; Fischer, D.J.; Mann, J. A sensor data collection environment for clinical trials investigating health effects of airborne pollution. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Health Informatics (BHI), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4–7 March 2018; pp. 88–91. [Google Scholar]
  81. Dieffenderfer, J.; Goodell, H.; Mills, S.; McKnight, M.; Yao, S.; Lin, F.; Beppler, E.; Bent, B.; Lee, B.; Misra, V.; et al. Low-Power wearable systems for continuous monitoring of environment and health for chronic respiratory disease. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 2016, 20, 1251–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Bu, Y.; Wu, W.; Zeng, X.; Koehl, L.; Tartare, G. A wearable intelligent system for real time monitoring firefighter’s physiological state and predicting dangers. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 16th International Conference on Communication Technology (ICCT), Hangzhou, China 18–21 October 2015; pp. 429–432. [Google Scholar]
  83. Alam, M.F.; Katsikas, S.; Hadjiefthymiades, S. An advanced system architecture for the maintenance work in extreme environment. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Systems Engineering (ISSE), Rome, Italy, 29–30 September 2015; pp. 406–411. [Google Scholar]
  84. Soukup, R.; Blecha, T.; Hamacek, A.; Reboun, J. Smart textile-based protective system for firefighters. In Proceedings of the 5th Electronics System-integration Technology Conference (ESTC), Helsinki, Finland, 16–18 September 2014; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  85. Curone, D.; Secco, E.L.; Tognetti, A.; Loriga, G.; Dudnik, G.; Risatti, M.; Whyte, R.; Bonfiglio, A.; Magenes, G. Smart garments for emergency operators: The ProeTEX project. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 2010, 14, 694–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Giovanis, E.; Ozdamar, O. Health status, mental health and air quality: Evidence from pensioners in Europe. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 14206–14225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Anisman, H.; Hayley, S. Inflammatory factors contribute to depression and its comorbid conditions. Sci. Signal. 2012, 5, pe45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bresnahan, B.W.; Dickie, M.; Gerking, S. Averting behavior and urban air pollution. Land Econ. 1997, 73, 340–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wigle, D.T.; Arbuckle, T.E.; Turner, M.C.; Bérubé, A.; Yang, Q.; Liu, S.; Krewski, D. Epidemiologic evidence of relationships between reproductive and child health outcomes and environmental chemical contaminants. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part B 2008, 11, 373–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Qureshi, F.; Krishnan, S. Wearable hardware design for the internet of medical things (IoMT). Sensors 2018, 18, 3812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Andreu-Perez, J.; Leff, D.R.; Ip, H.M.; Yang, G.Z. From wearable sensors to smart implants—Toward pervasive and personalized healthcare. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2015, 62, 2750–2762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Neubert, S.; Geißler, A.; Roddelkopf, T.; Stoll, R.; Smann, K.H.; Neumann, J.; Thurow, K. Multi-sensor-fusion approach for a data-science-oriented preventive health management system: Concept and development of a decentralized data collection approach for heterogeneous data sources. Int. J. Telemed. Appl. 2019, 2019, 9864246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Zheng, J.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, T.; Zhang, G.; Lu, H. Emerging wearable medical devices towards personalized healthcare. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Body Area Networks, Boston, MA, USA, 30 September–2 October 2013; pp. 427–431. [Google Scholar]
  94. Jovanov, E.; Milenkovic, A.; Otto, C.; DeGroen, P.C. A wireless body area network of intelligent motion sensors for computer assisted physical rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2005, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Lim, S.; Oh, T.H.; Choi, Y.B.; Lakshman, T. Security issues on wireless body area network for remote healthcare monitoring. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy Computing, Newport Beach, CA, USA, 7–9 June 2010; pp. 327–332. [Google Scholar]
  96. Jovanov, E.; Milenkovic, A. Body area networks for ubiquitous healthcare applications: Opportunities and challenges. J. Med. Syst. 2011, 35, 1245–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Latré, B.; Braem, B.; Moerman, I.; Blondia, C.; Demeester, P. A survey on wireless body area networks. Wirel Netw. 2011, 17, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gao, W.; Emaminejad, S.; Nyein, H.Y.Y.; Challa, S.; Chen, K.; Peck, A.; Fahad, H.M.; Ota, H.; Shiraki, H.; Kiriya, D.; et al. Fully integrated wearable sensor arrays for multiplexed in situ perspiration analysis. Nature 2016, 529, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Guk, K.; Han, G.; Lim, J.; Jeong, K.; Kang, T.; Lim, E.K.; Jung, J. Evolution of wearable devices with real-time disease monitoring for personalized healthcare. J. Nanomater. 2019, 9, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Hiremath, S.; Yang, G.; Mankodiya, K. Wearable Internet of Things: Concept, architectural components and promises for person-centered healthcare. In Proceedings of the 2014 4th International Conference on Wireless Mobile Communication and Healthcare-Transforming Healthcare Through Innovations in Mobile and Wireless Technologies (MOBIHEALTH), Athens, Greece, 3–5 November 2014; pp. 304–307. [Google Scholar]
  101. Schmitz, O.J.; Barton, B.T. Climate change effects on behavioral and physiological ecology of predator—Prey interactions: Implications for conservation biological control. Biol. Control 2014, 75, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jakicic, J.M.; Davis, K.K.; Rogers, R.J.; King, W.C.; Marcus, M.D.; Helsel, D.; Rickman, A.D.; Wahed, A.S.; Belle, S.H. Effect of wearable technology combined with a lifestyle intervention on long-term weight loss: The IDEA randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016, 316, 1161–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Ludwig, W.; Wolf, K.H.; Duwenkamp, C.; Gusew, N.; Hellrung, N.; Marschollek, M.; Wagner, M.; Haux, R. Health-enabling technologies for the elderly–an overview of services based on a literature review. Comput. Meth. Prog. Biomed. 2012, 106, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sultan, N. Reflective thoughts on the potential and challenges of wearable technology for healthcare provision and medical education. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Talukder, M.S.; Sorwar, G.; Bao, Y.; Ahmed, J.U.; Palash, M.A.S. Predicting antecedents of wearable healthcare technology acceptance by elderly: A combined SEM-Neural Network approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Partheniadis, K.; Stavrakis, M. Design and evaluation of a digital wearable ring and a smartphone application to help monitor and manage the effects of Raynaud’s phenomenon. Multimedia Tools Appl. 2019, 78, 3365–3394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sagner, M.; McNeil, A.; Puska, P.; Auffray, C.; Price, N.D.; Hood, L.; Lavie, C.J.; Han, Z.-G.; Cheng, Z.; Brahmachari, S.K.; et al. The P4 health spectrum—A predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory continuum for promoting healthspan. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2017, 59, 506–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Ross, M.; Wei, W.; Ohno-Machado, L. “Big data” and the electronic health record. Yearb. Med. Inf. 2014, 9, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Hassib, M.; Khamis, M.; Schneegass, S.; Shirazi, A.S.; Alt, F. Investigating user needs for bio-sensing and affective wearables. In Proceedings of the 2016 Chi Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; pp. 1415–1422. [Google Scholar]
  110. Spicher, N.; Barakat, R.; Wang, J.; Haghi, M.; Jagieniak, J.; Öktem, G.S.; Hackel, S.; Deserno, T.M. Proposing an International Standard Accident Number (ISAN) for interconnecting ICT systems of the rescue chain. Methods Inf. Med. 2021, in press. [Google Scholar]
  111. Gupta, A.; Jha, R.K. A survey of 5G network: Architecture and emerging technologies. IEEE Access 2015, 3, 1206–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Can. Psychol. 2008, 49, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. James, J.E. Health care, psychology, and the scientist-practitioner model. Aust. Psychol. 1994, 29, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Lancsar, E.; Louviere, J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26, 661–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Muslimović, D.; Post, B.; Speelman, J.D.; Schm, B. Cognitive profile of patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson disease. Neurology 2005, 65, 1239–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. LeRouge, C.; Ma, J.; Sneha, S.; Tolle, K. User profiles and personas in the design and development of consumer health technologies. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2013, 82, e251–e268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The methods of study and analysis.
Figure 1. The methods of study and analysis.
Sensors 21 02130 g001
Figure 2. Total number of wearable devices that met the requirements of the study.
Figure 2. Total number of wearable devices that met the requirements of the study.
Sensors 21 02130 g002
Figure 3. Distribution of wearable devices according to: mode of wearability (top-left), data transmission (top-right), data usage (bottom-left), and application (bottom-right) of the wearable devices.
Figure 3. Distribution of wearable devices according to: mode of wearability (top-left), data transmission (top-right), data usage (bottom-left), and application (bottom-right) of the wearable devices.
Sensors 21 02130 g003
Figure 4. Measured parameters and iterations in G1, G2, and G3 (left) and physiological parameters measured by G3 (right) devices.
Figure 4. Measured parameters and iterations in G1, G2, and G3 (left) and physiological parameters measured by G3 (right) devices.
Sensors 21 02130 g004
Figure 5. Distribution of G1 wearable devices according to: mode of wearability (top-left), data transmission (top-right), data usage (bottom-left), and application (bottom-right) of the wearable devices.
Figure 5. Distribution of G1 wearable devices according to: mode of wearability (top-left), data transmission (top-right), data usage (bottom-left), and application (bottom-right) of the wearable devices.
Sensors 21 02130 g005
Figure 6. Distribution of G2 wearable devices according to: mode of wearability (top-left), data transmission (top-right), data usage (bottom-left), and application (bottom-right) of the wearable devices.
Figure 6. Distribution of G2 wearable devices according to: mode of wearability (top-left), data transmission (top-right), data usage (bottom-left), and application (bottom-right) of the wearable devices.
Sensors 21 02130 g006
Figure 7. Distribution of G3 wearable devices according to: mode of wearability (top-left), data transmission (top-right), data usage (bottom-left), and application (bottom-right) of the wearable devices.
Figure 7. Distribution of G3 wearable devices according to: mode of wearability (top-left), data transmission (top-right), data usage (bottom-left), and application (bottom-right) of the wearable devices.
Sensors 21 02130 g007
Figure 8. A statistic analysis of the wearables between 2009 and 2019 in the aspects of production and parameters (top line view), data transmission and wearability (second line view), data usage and application (third line view), and application of all groups and average parameters measurement (bottom line view).
Figure 8. A statistic analysis of the wearables between 2009 and 2019 in the aspects of production and parameters (top line view), data transmission and wearability (second line view), data usage and application (third line view), and application of all groups and average parameters measurement (bottom line view).
Sensors 21 02130 g008
Figure 9. G3 analysis in terms of features, principles, and application. In G3, no device has been designed supporting general monitoring.
Figure 9. G3 analysis in terms of features, principles, and application. In G3, no device has been designed supporting general monitoring.
Sensors 21 02130 g009
Figure 10. Customized and quantified output for future wearables. BMI stands for body mass index. E, B, Ph, and S stand for environmental, behavioral, physiological and psychological, each with number of parameters from 1 to n, j, k, and m, respectively. ENV, BEH, PHY, and PSY are the coefficient of environmental, behavioral, physiological, and psychological domains, weighting the parameters.
Figure 10. Customized and quantified output for future wearables. BMI stands for body mass index. E, B, Ph, and S stand for environmental, behavioral, physiological and psychological, each with number of parameters from 1 to n, j, k, and m, respectively. ENV, BEH, PHY, and PSY are the coefficient of environmental, behavioral, physiological, and psychological domains, weighting the parameters.
Sensors 21 02130 g010
Table 1. Comparison of different wireless communication protocols used in wireless body area networks (WBANs). P2P and LPWAN stand for Peer to Peer and Low Powered Wide-Area Network, respectively.
Table 1. Comparison of different wireless communication protocols used in wireless body area networks (WBANs). P2P and LPWAN stand for Peer to Peer and Low Powered Wide-Area Network, respectively.
Wireless TechnologyProtocolFrequency BandsData RateData RangeNetwork TopologyPower Consumption
Bluetooth (classic)IEEE 802.15.12.4 GHz1–3 Mb/s∼100 mP2P, StarLow
BLEIEEE 802.15.12.4 GHz1 Mb/s∼100 mP2P, StarVery Low
ZigBeeIEEE 802.15.4868,915 (MHz), 2.4 (GHz)250 Kb/s∼10–100 mP2P, Star, Tree, MeshMedium
LoRaLPWAN868,915 MHz50 Kb/s∼10 KmStar, MeshVery Low
WiFiIEEE 802.112.4, 3.7, 5 GHz>45 Mb/s∼30–250 mP2P, Star, TreeHigh
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Haghi, M.; Danyali, S.; Ayasseh, S.; Wang, J.; Aazami, R.; Deserno, T.M. Wearable Devices in Health Monitoring from the Environmental towards Multiple Domains: A Survey. Sensors 2021, 21, 2130. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062130

AMA Style

Haghi M, Danyali S, Ayasseh S, Wang J, Aazami R, Deserno TM. Wearable Devices in Health Monitoring from the Environmental towards Multiple Domains: A Survey. Sensors. 2021; 21(6):2130. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062130

Chicago/Turabian Style

Haghi, Mostafa, Saeed Danyali, Sina Ayasseh, Ju Wang, Rahmat Aazami, and Thomas M. Deserno. 2021. "Wearable Devices in Health Monitoring from the Environmental towards Multiple Domains: A Survey" Sensors 21, no. 6: 2130. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062130

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop