Our study yielded promising results for skin-contact detection (e.g. by determining whether the IoT patch is worn), particularly in conditions where the environmental (or room) temperatures ranged from 0°C to 30°C. However, it was unreliable when the environmental temperature was extremely high (i.e. 40°C). As shown in
Figure 2, when the patch was not worn, the skin sensor temperatures were comparable to the ambient sensor temperatures. Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in temperature differences between both sensor temperatures across environmental temperatures (F (1, 28) = 0.10,
P = 0.75). Before the patch was worn, the average temperature differences (SD) between ambient and skin sensor temperatures were −0.17°C (1.16), −0.17°C (0.81), 0.06°C (0.51), 0.01°C (0.68), and −0.23°C (0.49) at environmental temperatures of 0°C, 15°C, 25°C, 30°C, and 40°C, respectively. In contrast, there were noticeable temperature differences when the patch was worn. Statistical analysis indicated significant differences in temperature differences across environmental temperatures (F (1, 28) = 633.55,
P < 0.001). Furthermore, the difference decreased as the environmental temperature increased, ultimately reaching almost zero at an environmental temperature of 40°C. During the times that the patch was worn, the average temperature differences (SD) were 5.92°C (1.27), 4.43°C (1.30), 2.58°C (0.56), 1.85°C (0.64), and -0.52°C (0.49) at environmental temperatures of 0°C, 15°C, 25°C, 30°C, and 40°C, respectively.
Overall, the above-mentioned findings provided an important insight for patch wearing status (i.e. detecting skin contact with the IoT patch) at various environmental temperatures and led to the development of the following threshold equation: −0.15 × ambient sensor temperature + 5.87 = threshold. To develop this threshold equation, we conducted a linear regression analysis. In this analysis, the difference between ambient and skin sensor temperatures was included as the independent variable, whereas the ambient sensor temperature was treated as the dependent variable. This equation demonstrates the correlation between the temperature difference and patch wearing status based on the ambient sensor temperature, as shown in
Figure 3. Using this equation, if the difference between ambient and skin sensor temperatures was greater than or equal to the threshold (or the equation result), the patch wearing status was classified as being worn. As shown in
Figure 3, for environmental temperature conditions below 40°C, we were able to accurately identify the patches that were being worn. Agreements between calculated and manually recorded patch wearing status were 99% when the 40°C temperature condition was excluded. When including the 40°C environmental temperature condition, the agreement was 88%.
Using the classified patch wearing status data, we calculated patch wear times and compared them with manually recorded patch wear times. Because temperatures were measured every 30 seconds, when the patch wearing status was identified as being worn, we calculated the time assuming that the patient had been wearing the patch for the past 30 seconds. The calculated patch wear times were highly accurate in that the times were comparable to the manually recorded times. The average calculated patch wear times (SD) were 482.07 seconds (11.14), 477.93 seconds (11.14), 481.03 seconds (12.63), 480.00 seconds (8.02), and 168.75 seconds (179.96) at environmental temperatures of 0°C, 15°C, 25°C, 30°C, and 40°C, respectively. Given that the IoT patch actually was worn for 480 seconds at each different environmental temperature condition, the average differences in the calculated patch wear times and manually recorded patch wear times were 2.07 seconds (11.14), -2.07 seconds (11.14), -1.03 seconds (12.63), 0 (8.02) and -311.25 seconds (180.00) at environmental temperatures of 0°C, 15°C, 25°C, 30°C, and 40°C, respectively.