Truly wearable

When you see a photo of a shirt, for example, with sensing technology built in, it typically looks like something a young athlete would wear. That’s great, because athletes are among the people most likely to be interested in smart garments, and they have good reason to want to monitor their health. 

However, there is a larger demographic that can benefit from smart garments (or “wearables”), but they probably would not attempt to get that stretchy fitted shirt over their head, much less bend over, step into it and pull it up over their entire body. What they need is a breathable, lightweight, comfortable garment that is easy to put on and take off—even if they have damaged shoulders, or arthritis in their hands, or any number of other chronic conditions that limit choices in clothing. 

That is a key point Marie O’Mahony makes in her feature this month, “Smart garments for elderly healthcare.” But to peg all elderly as infirm in some way is, of course, an incorrect generalization. In fact, anybody, even people who are still strong and agile, may prefer a more “user-friendly” product. 

My mother would have been in that group. She died well into her 95^th year. She had a pacemaker—her only health issue of note – and, in fact, wore out one and had to have a second implanted. She had a monitoring system by way of a box sitting next to the phone on her desk, which made it possible for her to call into her doctor’s office and have her heart monitored. That’s as much as I could discern from the little she explained to me. I’m not sure she had much interest, although she did call in regularly, which I considered a small miracle. Her tagline for anything of concern was always, “Oh, it will be fine.”

Had there been a wearable with remote sensing capabilities in her time, she might very well have been willing to wear it—unless she didn’t feel like it, or she forgot to put it on, or she had to wash it. Such is the reality of wearables, but in particular for the elderly—not necessarily because they forget or have cognitive difficulties. Maybe they just aren’t used to “fussing about things.” … Oh, it will be fine. 

The alternative is regular trips to a healthcare facility to be monitored for their heart issue, or diabetes, or oxygen level, or any number of other health conditions that can trigger a vital signs signal early on—before the patient is in real trouble. So, yes, a shirt (or some other wearable sensor made of a fabric substrate) is better, maybe way better, and absolutely worth the effort of making a product that’s more comfortable, more available, more widely accepted, and more practical for those with infirmities who may need it most.

It could also compound the need for protecting the data and maintaining privacy for potentially millions of people who will rely on sensing wearables to maintain an independent lifestyle. This is also a key point discussed in Dr. Mahony’s feature, with the most up-to-date information available on the topic.

A wearable, in my mother’s case, was not going to prolong her life, but it would have been more convenient, and it would have provided more complete data. She also might have thought it was pretty cool to have a shirt that managed it for her. “It’s just slick,” she would have said. 

Yes, mom, it sure is. 

Janet Preus is senior editor of Textile Technology Source. She can be reached at janet.preus@textiles.org.