Wearable devices: Useful medical insights or just more data?

August 2, 2018, Frontiers
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Wearable devices are increasingly bought to track and measure health and sports performance: from the number of steps walked each day to a person's metabolic efficiency, from the quality of brain function to the quantity of oxygen inhaled while asleep. But the truth is we know very little about how well these sensors and machines work—let alone whether they deliver useful information, according to a new review published in Frontiers in Physiology.

"Despite the fact that we live in an era of 'big data,' we know surprisingly little about the suitability or effectiveness of these devices," says lead author Dr. Jonathan Peake of the School of Biomedical Sciences and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia. "Only five percent of these devices have been formally validated."

The authors reviewed information on devices used both by everyday people desiring to keep track of their physical and and by athletes training to achieve certain performance levels. The devices—ranging from so-called wrist trackers to smart garments and body sensors designed to track our body's vital signs and responses to stress and environmental influences—fall into six categories:

  • devices for monitoring hydration status and metabolism
  • devices, garments and mobile applications for monitoring physical and psychological stress
  • wearable devices that provide physical biofeedback (e.g., muscle stimulation, haptic feedback)
  • devices that provide cognitive feedback and training
  • devices and applications for monitoring and promoting sleep
  • devices and applications for evaluating concussion

The authors investigated key issues, such as: what the technology claims to do; whether the technology has been independently validated against some recognized standards; whether the technology is reliable and what, if any, calibration is needed; and finally, whether the item is commercially available or still under development.

The authors say that technology developed for research purposes generally seems to be more credible than devices created purely for commercial reasons.

"What is critical to understand here is that while most of these technologies are not labeled as 'medical devices' per se, their very existence, let alone the accompanying marketing, conveys a sensibility that they can be used to measure a standard of health," says Peake. "There are ethical issues with this assumption that need to be addressed."

For example, self-diagnosis based on self-gathered data could be inconsistent with clinical analysis based on a medical professional's assessment. And just as charts of the past really only provided general guidelines and didn't take into account a person's genetic predisposition or athletic build, today's technology is similarly limited.

The authors are particularly concerned about those technologies that seek to confirm or correlate whether someone has sustained or recovered from a concussion, whether from sports or military service.

"We have to be very careful here because there is so much variability," says Peake. "The technology could be quite useful, but it can't and should never replace assessment by a trained medical professional."

Speaking generally again now, Peake says it is important to establish whether using affects people's knowledge and attitude about their own health and whether paying such close attention to our bodies could in fact create a harmful obsession with personal health, either for individuals using the devices, or for family members. Still, self-monitoring may reveal undiagnosed health problems, said Peake, although population data is more likely to point to false positives.

"What we do know is that we need to start studying these devices and the trends they are creating," says Peake. "This is a booming industry."

In fact, a March 2018 study by P&S Market Research indicates the wearable market is expected to generate $48.2 billion in revenue by 2023. That's a mere five years into the future."

The authors highlight a number of areas for investigation in order to develop reasonable consumer policies around this growing industry. These include how rigorously the /technology has been evaluated and the strength of evidence that the device/ actually produces the desired outcomes.

"And I'll add a final question: Is wearing a device that continuously tracks your body's actions, your brain activity, and your metabolic function—then wirelessly transmits that data to either a cloud-based databank or some other storage—safe, for users? Will it help us improve our ?" asked Peake. "We need to ask these questions and research the answers."

Explore further: Researchers create kinetic clothes to monitor body movements

More information: Jonathan M. Peake et al, A Critical Review of Consumer Wearables, Mobile Applications, and Equipment for Providing Biofeedback, Monitoring Stress, and Sleep in Physically Active Populations, Frontiers in Physiology (2018). DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00743

Related Stories

Researchers create kinetic clothes to monitor body movements

April 19, 2018
Deakin researchers have engineered the next generation of wearable technology, using strain sensing textile fibres to create clothing that keeps track of its wearer's movements.

Consumer sleep technology is no substitute for medical evaluation

May 14, 2018
According to a position statement from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM), consumer sleep technology must be cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and rigorously tested if it is intended to diagnose ...

Fall detection devices for seniors are falling short

March 5, 2018
The high-tech aids seniors rely on to summon help if they fall might not be as effective as they'd like to believe.

Analysis shows lack of evidence that wearable biosensors improve patient outcomes

January 16, 2018
Wearable biosensors have grown increasingly popular as many people use them in wristbands or watches to count steps or track sleep. But there is not enough proof that these devices are improving patient outcomes such as weight ...

Wearable tracking devices alone won't drive health behavior change, according to researchers

January 9, 2015
New Year's weight loss resolutions are in full swing, but despite all the hype about the latest wearable tracking devices, there's little evidence that this technology alone can change behavior and improve health for those ...

Activity trackers are ineffective at sustaining weight loss, study finds

September 20, 2016
Wearable devices that monitor physical activity are not reliable tools for weight loss, says a new study from the University of Pittsburgh School of Education's Department of Health and Physical Activity. The study specifically ...

Recommended for you

How AI could help veterinarians code their notes

November 19, 2018
A team led by scientists at the School of Medicine has developed an algorithm that can read the typed-out notes from veterinarians and predict specific diseases that the animal may have.

Bullying and violence at work increases the risk of cardiovascular disease

November 19, 2018
People who are bullied at work or experience violence at work are at higher risk of heart and brain blood vessel problems, including heart attacks and stroke, according to the largest prospective study to investigate the ...

A low-gluten, high-fiber diet may be healthier than gluten-free

November 16, 2018
When healthy people eat a low-gluten and fibre-rich diet compared with a high-gluten diet, they experience less intestinal discomfort including less bloating. Researchers at University of Copenhagen show that this is due ...

Youth dating violence shaped by parents' conflict-handling views, study finds

November 16, 2018
Parents who talk to their children about nonviolent ways of resolving conflict may reduce children's likelihood of physically or psychologically abusing their dating partners later—even when parents give contradictory messages ...

Why we shouldn't like coffee, but we do

November 15, 2018
Why do we like the bitter taste of coffee? Bitterness evolved as a natural warning system to protect the body from harmful substances. By evolutionary logic, we should want to spit it out.

Dietary fat is good? Dietary fat is bad? Coming to consensus

November 15, 2018
Which is better, a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet or a high-fat/low-carbohydrate diet—or is it the type of fat that matters? In a new paper featured on the cover of Science magazine's special issue on nutrition, researchers ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.