2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.cvdhj.2021.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

“Wearables only work on patients that wear them”: Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of wearable cardiac monitoring technologies

Abstract: This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…39 In addition, we found the Dreem app's functionality to present basic sleep metrics back to the participant encouraged use of the Dreem 2 headband and was a likely contributor to adherence and compliance in our feasibility study. This is in line with Ferguson et al 40 who found a key facilitator to adherence of wearable technology among cardiac patients were ‘timely and appropriate feedback, and friendly user experience’. Although promising, it is important to recognise that the feasibility and acceptability of the Dreem 2 headband is one aspect of integrating these technologies into practice; validating the headband data, funding for devices, and training development for researchers and clinicians are equally important in facilitating the uptake of these devices.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…39 In addition, we found the Dreem app's functionality to present basic sleep metrics back to the participant encouraged use of the Dreem 2 headband and was a likely contributor to adherence and compliance in our feasibility study. This is in line with Ferguson et al 40 who found a key facilitator to adherence of wearable technology among cardiac patients were ‘timely and appropriate feedback, and friendly user experience’. Although promising, it is important to recognise that the feasibility and acceptability of the Dreem 2 headband is one aspect of integrating these technologies into practice; validating the headband data, funding for devices, and training development for researchers and clinicians are equally important in facilitating the uptake of these devices.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…This may seem like an obvious point, but wearable health devices in general, no matter how worthwhile the concept of the wearable health device, are only of benefit to the intended user if they use the device as intended. In other words a wearable device is only of benefit if the intended user engages in the behaviours expected by the designer [ 62 ]. However, adherence to wearable health devices can in fact be very poor and the issue of poor compliance to wearable health technology is of particular concern to payers, like insurance companies, who sometimes pay for the wearable technology on the basis of the promised health benefits these devices should provide.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, regular and effective patient-provider communication was noted when the provider remained the same. 91 Patients were found to report mostly positive experiences when telehealth facilitated maintenance of a pre-existing relationship. 57 A pre-existing patient-provider relationship when using remote consultations was linked to positive outcomes including enabling providers to engage patients in shared decision-making and self-management 56 and better treatment continuity and clinician outcomes.…”
Section: Communication Systemsmentioning
confidence: 98%