Radiance Research AcademyInternational Journal of Current Research and Review2231-21960975-5241EnglishN2026September30Life Sciences A Cross-Sectional Study of Awareness, Acceptance, Barriers and Willingness to Adopt Wearable Posture Correction Devices Among Computer Professionals     English0109Dharti PansalaEnglish Anjan DesaiEnglishhttps://doi.org/10.31782/IJCRR.2026.181801 Introduction: Prolonged computer use and poor sitting posture may contribute to forward head posture (FHP) and musculo skeletal discomfort among computer professionals. Wearable posture correction devices can provide real-time biofeedback to promote postural awareness. This study aimed to assess awareness, acceptance, perceived barriers, and willingness to use wearable posture correction devices among computer professionals. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted among 150 computer professionals aged 24–45 years working in various organisations in Surat, Gujarat. Participants completed a structured questionnaire assessing awareness, attitude, per ceived barriers, and willingness/intention to use wearable posture correction devices. Descriptive statistics were used for analy sis. Details of the questionnaire’s development, validity/reliability, scoring system, study period, ethics approval, and sample-size justification should be reported explicitly in the final manuscript. Results: Only 25.33% of participants had previously heard of wearable posture correction devices, while 74.67% were unaware. However, 68.00% identified their stated purpose, 65.33% recognised their real-time feedback capability, and 78.00% agreed that such devices could help prevent FHP. The mean attitude score was 40.04 ± 5.21/50 as reported in the original dataset/manu script. Most participants were willing to try a device (84.00%) and use it regularly (74.67%). In the direct-response questions, 80.00% were willing to use a device if provided free of cost, 66.00% indicated willingness to purchase one, and 70.67% would recommend it to coworkers. Lack of awareness (74.67%) and high cost (20.00%) were the main reported barriers. Conclusion: Computer professionals in this sample showed limited prior awareness but favourable attitudes and substantial willingness/intention to use wearable posture correction devices. These findings reflect perceived acceptability and behavioral intention rather than actual device adoption or clinical effectiveness. EnglishSmart wearable device, Posture, Computer professionals, Awareness, Acceptance, Barriers, Adoptionhttp://ijcrr.com/abstract.php?article_id=4923http://ijcrr.com/article_html.php?did=4923 1. Briggs AM, Woolf AD, Dreinhöfer K, Homb N, Hoy DG, Ko pansky-Giles D, et al. Reducing the global burden of musculo skeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96(5):366 8. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.204891 2. Côté P, Wong JJ, Sutton D, Shearer HM, Mior S, Randhawa K, et al. Management of neck pain and associated disorders: A clin ical practice guideline. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(7): A1-A83. 3. Kim MS. Influence of neck pain on cervical movement in adults with forward head posture. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(1):15–7. 4. Harman K, Hubley-Kozey CL, Butler H. Effectiveness of an exercise program to improve forward head posture in normal adults. J Manual Manip Ther. 2005;13(3):163–76. 5. Waongenngarm P, Areerak K, Janwantanakul P. The effects of breaks on low back pain, discomfort and work productivity in office workers: A systematic review. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018;68:230–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.003 6. Caixeiro D, Cordeiro T, Constantino L, Carreira J, Mendes R, Silva CG, et al. Effectiveness of wearable devices for posture correction: a systematic review of evidence from randomized and quasi-experimental studies. Appl Sci 2026;16(1):81. doi:10.3390/app16010081. 7. Schall MC Jr, Sesek RF, Cavuoto LA. Barriers to the adoption of wearable sensors in the workplace: A survey of occupational safety and health professionals. Hum Factors. 2018;60(3):351 62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817753907 8. Patil V, Singhal DK, Naik N, Hameed BMZ, Shah MJ, Ibrahim S, et al. Factors affecting the usage of wearable device technol ogy for healthcare among Indian adults: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Med 2022;11(23):7019. doi:10.3390/jcm11237019. 9. Sergueeva K, Shaw N, Lee SHM. Understanding the barriers and factors associated with consumer adoption of wearable tech nology devices in managing personal health. Can J Adm Sci. 2020;37(1):45–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1547 10. Yang Q, Al Mamun A, Hayat N, Jingzu G, Hoque ME, Sala meh AA. Modeling the intention and adoption of wearable fit ness devices. Front Public Health 2022;10:918989. doi:10.3389/ fpubh.2022.918989. 11. Côté P, van der Velde G, Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, Hogg-Johnson S, Holm LW, et al. The burden and determinants of neck pain in workers: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(4 Suppl): S60-S74. 12. Janwantanakul P, Pensri P, Jiamjarasrangsi W, Sinsongsook T. Prevalence of self-reported musculoskeletal symptoms among office workers. Occup Med (Lond). 2008;58(6):436-438. 13. Andersen LL, Fallentin N, Thorsen SV, Holtermann A. Physical workload and risk of long-term sickness absence among workers with neck pain. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73(4):246-252. 14. Hoy DG, Protani M, De R, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of neck pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(6):783-792. 15. Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Wearable devices as fa cilitators, not drivers, of health behaviour change. JAMA. 2015;313(5):459-460. 16. Piwek L, Ellis DA, Andrews S, Joinson A. The rise of con sumer health wearables: promises and barriers. PLoS Med. 2016;13(2):e1001953. 17. Lee JH, Park SY, Yoo WG. Changes in rounded shoulder posture and forward head posture according to exercise methods. J Phys Ther Sci. 2017;29(10):1824-1827. 18. Wong CK, Mentis HM, Kuber R. The role of wearable technol ogy in posture monitoring: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel). 2022;22(15):5624. 19. Cuesta-Vargas AI, Galán-Mercant A, Williams JM. The use of wearable inertial sensors in rehabilitation: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel). 2010;10(6):5857-5874. 20. Yang CC, Hsu YL. A review of accelerometry-based wearable motion detectors for physical activity monitoring. Sensors (Ba sel). 2010;10(8):7772-7788. 21. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319 340. 22. Li J, Ma Q, Chan AH, Man SS. Health monitoring through wear able technologies for older adults: smart wearables acceptance model. Appl Ergon. 2019; 75:162-169. 23. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User accept ance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425-478. 24. Puri A, Kim B, Nguyen O, Stolee P, Tung J, Lee J. User accept ance of wrist-worn activity trackers among community-dwelling older adults. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(11): e173. 25. Louw A, Zimney K, O’Hotto C, Hilton S. The clinical applica tion of pain neuroscience education. Physiother Theory Pract. 2016;32(5):332-355