An End-User Evaluation of Blast Overpressure and Accelerative Impact Body-Worn Sensors

Introduction: Blast overpressure and accelerative impact can produce concussive-like symptoms in service members serving both garrison and deployed environments. In an effort to measure, document, and improve the response to these overpressure and impact events, the U.S. Army Medical Material Development Activity is evaluating body-worn sensors for use by the Joint Conventional Force. In support, the WRAIR completed a qualitative end-user evaluation with service members from high-risk mission occupational specialties to determine the potential needs, benefits, and challenges associated with adopting body-worn sensors into their job duties.

Materials and methods: WRAIR staff led hour-long semi-structured focus groups with 156 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps participants, primarily representing infantry, combat engineer, explosive ordnance disposal, artillery, mortar, and armor job specialties. Topics included their sensor needs, concepts of operations, and recommended design features for implementing sensors into the force. Dialogue from each focus group was audio recorded and resulting transcripts were coded for thematic qualitative analysis using NVivo software.

Results: Users recommended a single, unobtrusive, rugged, multi-directional sensor that could be securely mounted to the helmet and powered by a battery type (such as rechargeable lithium or disposable alkaline batteries) that was best suited for their garrison and field/deployed environments. The sensors should accurately measure low-level (∼1.0 pounds per square inch) blasts and maintain a record of cumulative exposures for each service member. Discussions supported the need for immediate, actionable feedback from the sensor with the option to view detailed blast or impact data on a computer. There were, however, divergent opinions on security issues regarding wireless versus wired data transfer methods. Participants also expressed a need for the exposure data to integrate with their medical records and were also willing to have their data shared with leadership, although opinions differed on the level of echelon and if the data should be identifiable. Regarding accountability, users did not want to be held fiscally liable for the sensors and recommended having the unit be responsible for maintenance and distribution. Concerns about being held fiscally liable, being overly burdened, and having one's career negatively impacted were listed as factors that could decrease usage. Finally, participants highlighted the importance of understanding the purpose and function of the sensors and supported a corresponding training module.

Conclusions: Participating service members were generally willing to adopt body-worn sensors into their garrison and deployed activities. To maximize adoption of the devices, they should be convenient to use and should not interfere with service members' job tasks. Providing a clear understanding of the benefits (such as incorporating exposure data into medical records) and the function of sensors will be critical for encouraging buy-in among users and leaders. Incorporating end-user requirements and considering the benefits and challenges highlighted by end users are important for the design and implementation of body-worn sensors to mitigate the risks of blast overpressure and accelerative impact on service members' health.