The Influence of Wearables on Health Care Outcomes in Chronic Disease: Systematic Review

Abstract

Background Chronic diseases contribute to high rates of disability and mortality. Patient engagement in chronic disease self-management is an essential component of chronic disease models of health care. Wearables provide patient-centered health data in real time, which can help inform self-management decision-making. Despite the perceived benefits of wearables in improving chronic disease self-management, their influence on health care outcomes remains poorly understood. Objective This review aimed to examine the influence of wearables on health care outcomes in individuals with chronic diseases through a systematic review of the literature. Methods A narrative systematic review was conducted by searching 6 databases for randomized and observational studies published between January 1, 2016, and July 1, 2021, that included the use of a wearable intervention in a chronic disease group to assess its impact on a predefined outcome measure. These outcomes were defined as any influence on the patient or clinician experience, cost-effectiveness, or health care outcomes as a result of the wearable intervention. Data from the included studies were extracted based on 6 key themes, which formed the basis for a narrative qualitative synthesis. All outcomes were mapped against each component of the Quadruple Aim of health care. The guidelines of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement were followed in this study. Results A total of 30 articles were included; studies reported 2446 participants (mean age: range 10.1-74.4 years), and the influence of 14 types of wearables on 18 chronic diseases was presented. The most studied chronic diseases were type 2 diabetes (4/30, 13%), Parkinson disease (3/30, 10%), and chronic lower back pain (3/30, 10%). The results were mixed when assessing the impact on a predefined primary outcome, with 50% (15/30) of studies finding a positive influence on the studied outcome and 50% (15/30) demonstrating a nil effect. There was a positive effect of 3D virtual reality systems on chronic pain in 7% (2/30) of studies that evaluated 2 distinct chronic pain syndromes. Mixed results were observed in influencing exercise capacity; weight; and biomarkers of disease, such as hemoglobin A1c, in diabetes. In total, 155 outcomes were studied. Most (139/155, 89.7%) addressed the health care outcomes component. This included pain (11/155, 7.5%), quality of life (7/155, 4.8%), and physical function (5/155, 3.4%). Approximately 7.7% (12/155) of outcome measures represented the patient experience component, with 1.3% (2/155) addressing the clinician experience and cost. Conclusions Given their popularity and capability, wearables may play an integral role in chronic disease management. However, further research is required to generate a strong evidence base for safe and effective implementation. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021244562; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=244562

PREVIDE: A Qualitative Study to Develop a Decision-Making Framework (PREVention decIDE) for Noncommunicable Disease Prevention in Healthcare Organisations

“…Historically, data may have nested within the evidence domain; however, rapid digital transformation of society and healthcare is creating new models of precision public health based upon real-world and big data [ 6 , 10 , 27 ]. Data is not synonymous with evidence; for example, lifestyle wearable devices such as smartwatches generate personal health information in real-time but most do not meet the data accuracy regulatory standards required for medical equipment [ 28 ]. More data does not also automatically mean more information, and information is not automatically evidence.…”

Wearable Devices in Cardiovascular Medicine

“…One recent systematic review examined the impact of wearables on health care outcomes in patients with chronic diseases, but only a small number of these studies examined costs. 104 A simulated model suggested that AF screening with wearable devices is cost-effective compared with no screening or traditional methods (ie, pulse palpation and 12-lead ECG), 103 and an economic evaluation of a cardiac telerehabilitation program suggested that it was likely to be cost-effective compared with traditional center-based CR. 45 As the existing body of evidence for wearables in cardiovascular medicine grows, it will be important for these studies to also publish cost analyses.…”

A step in the right direction: the potential role of smartwatches in supporting chronic disease prevention in health care

“…The evidence behind the use of smartwatches in chronic disease prevention is limited. Most studies have adopted an observational research design and/or have small sample sizes 14 . Providing a comprehensive analysis of an individual's health in real time could enable individualised care for people with chronic disease.…”