Mental health patients want wearable sensors: new research challenges assumptions

Over a decade ago, we investigated patient preferences for wearable and implantable sensors among those living with physical limitations, such as arthritis. These early studies gave valuable insight into how patients engage with technology when managing chronic physical conditions. However, one important gap has persisted in this space: how do individuals experiencing acute mental ill health feel about being monitored with sensing technologies?

This gap matters enormously. People with severe mental illness face a reduced life expectancy of 15-20 years compared to the general population. The cause? Largely preventable physical health conditions. Real-time monitoring could transform this health inequality – but only if patients accept the technology.

This question has been at the back of my mind for years, and I’m proud to share the findings of a new study that begins to address it. Our research reveals a compelling insight: patients going through severe episodes of mental illness are open to the idea of using sensor-based monitoring technologies.

We studied 83 patients during their most vulnerable moments – acute admissions to mental health units. Most were experiencing psychotic episodes. The statistics tell the story: 90% were on antipsychotic medication, 78% were detained under the Mental Health Act, and 67.9% exhibited elevated paranoid thoughts. These were individuals in genuine crisis.

Yet their responses surprised us.

When asked about wearing sensor devices, 65.1% said yes to visible devices. Nearly 70% would wear one concealed in clothing. More than half agreed to continuous 24-hour monitoring. Their preferences were remarkably practical too - they wanted devices that looked like everyday objects: watches, wristbands, necklaces.

You can read the full article here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-025-03769-0

This preliminary evidence is vital. It challenges long-held assumptions and emphasises that people with severe mental illness are not only capable of engaging with technological solutions but may also be willing partners in their development. This holds true even during times of acute distress.

When we compared these responses to our earlier study of patients with arthritis, we discovered both similarities and crucial differences. Mental health patients were more willing to wear visible devices but showed greater caution about data sharing and continuous monitoring. These distinctions matter – they provide a roadmap for developers and designers.

Acceptable and well-designed sensing technology could provide clinicians and care teams with real-time, actionable data. This enhances both acute interventions and long-term mental health care strategies. By understanding and integrating patient preferences from the outset, we can design tools that genuinely support those most in need.

The potential applications are considerable. Heart rate variability could predict psychotic episodes. GPS sensors might quantify negative symptoms. Comfortable textile sensors could monitor multiple physiological parameters simultaneously. But these innovations succeed only when they align with patient preferences.

What strikes me most is that patients engaged thoughtfully with complex questions about technology and privacy during their most difficult moments. Their willingness to participate challenges assumptions about capacity and interest in this population. These individuals deserve technologies designed with their voices central to the process.This work would not have been possible without the generous participation of the patients who shared their views, nor without the support of NIHR HealthTech Research Centre in Oxford. I’m grateful to the outstanding research team consisting of Alvaro Barrera, Ana Ghenciulescu, Niamh Owens, Ariana Cortez, Riccardo De Giorgi, and Phil Cowen.

It’s time to bring more engineers, designers, and clinicians into this field to create sensing solutions that are not only innovative, but truly inclusive.

The next steps are clear: we need to move from understanding preferences to co-designing solutions with patients, testing prototypes in real-world settings, and ensuring that the most vulnerable populations have a voice in shaping the technologies that could transform their care.