Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan 25;10(1):e34384.
doi: 10.2196/34384.

The Impact of Wearable Technologies in Health Research: Scoping Review

Affiliations

The Impact of Wearable Technologies in Health Research: Scoping Review

Sophie Huhn et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Background: Wearable devices hold great promise, particularly for data generation for cutting-edge health research, and their demand has risen substantially in recent years. However, there is a shortage of aggregated insights into how wearables have been used in health research.

Objective: In this review, we aim to broadly overview and categorize the current research conducted with affordable wearable devices for health research.

Methods: We performed a scoping review to understand the use of affordable, consumer-grade wearables for health research from a population health perspective using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) framework. A total of 7499 articles were found in 4 medical databases (PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Studies were eligible if they used noninvasive wearables: worn on the wrist, arm, hip, and chest; measured vital signs; and analyzed the collected data quantitatively. We excluded studies that did not use wearables for outcome assessment and prototype studies, devices that cost >€500 (US $570), or obtrusive smart clothing.

Results: We included 179 studies using 189 wearable devices covering 10,835,733 participants. Most studies were observational (128/179, 71.5%), conducted in 2020 (56/179, 31.3%) and in North America (94/179, 52.5%), and 93% (10,104,217/10,835,733) of the participants were part of global health studies. The most popular wearables were fitness trackers (86/189, 45.5%) and accelerometer wearables, which primarily measure movement (49/189, 25.9%). Typical measurements included steps (95/179, 53.1%), heart rate (HR; 55/179, 30.7%), and sleep duration (51/179, 28.5%). Other devices measured blood pressure (3/179, 1.7%), skin temperature (3/179, 1.7%), oximetry (3/179, 1.7%), or respiratory rate (2/179, 1.1%). The wearables were mostly worn on the wrist (138/189, 73%) and cost <€200 (US $228; 120/189, 63.5%). The aims and approaches of all 179 studies revealed six prominent uses for wearables, comprising correlations-wearable and other physiological data (40/179, 22.3%), method evaluations (with subgroups; 40/179, 22.3%), population-based research (31/179, 17.3%), experimental outcome assessment (30/179, 16.8%), prognostic forecasting (28/179, 15.6%), and explorative analysis of big data sets (10/179, 5.6%). The most frequent strengths of affordable wearables were validation, accuracy, and clinical certification (104/179, 58.1%).

Conclusions: Wearables showed an increasingly diverse field of application such as COVID-19 prediction, fertility tracking, heat-related illness, drug effects, and psychological interventions; they also included underrepresented populations, such as individuals with rare diseases. There is a lack of research on wearable devices in low-resource contexts. Fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, we see a shift toward more large-sized, web-based studies where wearables increased insights into the developing pandemic, including forecasting models and the effects of the pandemic. Some studies have indicated that big data extracted from wearables may potentially transform the understanding of population health dynamics and the ability to forecast health trends.

Keywords: big data; commercially available wearables; consumer-grade wearables; fitness trackers; global health; low-resource setting; mHealth; mobile phone; population health; public health; research; review; tracker; wearable.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram [220].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of studies and study participants (logarithmic scale) per year of study publication. The sizes of the circles visualize the overlapping and number of studies within the year.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Included studies per continent. The colors of the continents visualize the number of included studies published on the respective continent (created with Mapchart [221]).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Studies per medical field.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Wear locations of wearables and their frequencies. The color and size of the circles assigned to the body location visualize the frequency of wearables worn on the respective location.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Categorization of wearable applications, showing proportions of the 6 categories (with 4 subcategories). The size of depicted categories (in different colors) corresponds to the number of studies.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Chart of reported strengths and weaknesses of wearables as mentioned by authors. PA: physical activity.

References

    1. Canalys. Singapore: 2014. [2020-11-12]. Wearable band shipments rocket by 684% https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/wearable-band-shipments-rocket-684?time... .
    1. Henriksen A, Haugen Mikalsen M, Woldaregay AZ, Muzny M, Hartvigsen G, Hopstock LA, Grimsgaard S. Using fitness trackers and smartwatches to measure physical activity in research: analysis of consumer wrist-worn wearables. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(3):e110. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9157. http://www.jmir.org/2018/3/e110/ v20i3e110 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shin G, Jarrahi MH, Fei Y, Karami A, Gafinowitz N, Byun A, Lu X. Wearable activity trackers, accuracy, adoption, acceptance and health impact: a systematic literature review. J Biomed Inform. 2019;93:103153. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103153.S1532-0464(19)30071-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carpenter A, Frontera A. Smart-watches: a potential challenger to the implantable loop recorder. Europace. 2016;18(6):791–3. doi: 10.1093/europace/euv427.euv427 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jia Y, Wang W, Wen D, Liang L, Gao L, Lei J. Perceived user preferences and usability evaluation of mainstream wearable devices for health monitoring. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5350. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5350. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5350.5350 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types