Association of Demographic and Socioeconomic Indicators With the Use of Wearable Devices Among Children

Abstract

ImportanceThe use of consumer-grade wearable devices for collecting data for biomedical research may be associated with social determinants of health (SDoHs) linked to people’s understanding of and willingness to join and remain engaged in remote health studies.ObjectiveTo examine whether demographic and socioeconomic indicators are associated with willingness to join a wearable device study and adherence to wearable data collection in children.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study used wearable device usage data collected from 10 414 participants (aged 11-13 years) at the year-2 follow-up (2018-2020) of the ongoing Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, performed at 21 sites across the United States. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to July 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe 2 primary outcomes were (1) participant retention in the wearable device substudy and (2) total device wear time during the 21-day observation period. Associations between the primary end points and sociodemographic and economic indicators were examined.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the 10 414 participants was 12.00 (0.72) years, with 5444 (52.3%) male participants. Overall, 1424 participants (13.7%) were Black; 2048 (19.7%), Hispanic; and 5615 (53.9%) White. Substantial differences were observed between the cohort that participated and shared wearable device data (wearable device cohort [WDC]; 7424 participants [71.3%]) compared with those who did not participate or share data (no wearable device cohort [NWDC]; 2900 participants [28.7%]). Black children were significantly underrepresented (−59%) in the WDC (847 [11.4%]) compared with the NWDC (577 [19.3%]; P < .001). In contrast, White children were overrepresented (+132%) in the WDC (4301 [57.9%]) vs the NWDC (1314 [43.9%]; P < .001). Children from low-income households (<$24 999) were significantly underrepresented in WDC (638 [8.6%]) compared with NWDC (492 [16.5%]; P < .001). Overall, Black children were retained for a substantially shorter duration (16 days; 95% CI, 14-17 days) compared with White children (21 days; 95% CI, 21-21 days; P < .001) in the wearable device substudy. In addition, total device wear time during the observation was notably different between Black vs White children (β = −43.00 hours; 95% CI, −55.11 to −30.88 hours; P < .001).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, large-scale wearable device data collected from children showed considerable differences between White and Black children in terms of enrollment and daily wear time. While wearable devices provide an opportunity for real-time, high-frequency contextual monitoring of individuals’ health, future studies should account for and address considerable representational bias in wearable data collection associated with demographic and SDoH factors.

Country Differences in Nocturnal Sleep Variability: Observations from a Large-scale, Long-term Sleep Wearable Study

“…People who use sleep/activity trackers tend to have higher socioeconomic status; they are also younger, more health-conscious (and healthy) and more technologically adept than the general population 91 . However, these limitations also apply to many other sleep studies, particularly those involving wearable devices (or relying on other potentially expensive technology) and requiring the time, interest and cooperation of participants 92 . A more representative characterization of global sleep habits requires sleep/activity trackers to achieve the ubiquity of mobile phones and a reduction in digital health inequality 93 Another factor potentially influencing this study was COVID-19.…”

Using explainable machine learning and fitbit data to investigate predictors of adolescent obesity

“…Second, challenges in detecting sleep onset 79 and potentially reduced reliability in individuals with sleep problems 80 pose limitations on the Fitbit's ability to fully capture sleep patterns. Third, the lower representation of adolescents identifying as a race other than White who participated in the Fitbit sub-study 81 indicates that our sample is not as diverse as the whole ABCD cohort, and there may be barriers to collecting these data in minorities. Lastly, the data are observational and cannot determine causality.…”

Does clinical research account for diversity in deploying digital health technologies?

“…Disparities in cancer outcomes persist among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups 18 and differences in telemedicine utilization occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic on the basis of gender, race, education, and other demographic characteristics 19 . Significant disparities in participation and device wear time have been demonstrated on the basis of race and income in research involving DHTs 20 . If DHT deployment in clinical research continues to expand without regard for such disparities, we risk perpetuating gaps in the performance of DHTs across groups.…”