Patterns of Use and Key Predictors for the Use of Wearable Health Care Devices by US Adults: Insights from a National Survey
- PMID: 33064083
- PMCID: PMC7600024
- DOI: 10.2196/22443
Patterns of Use and Key Predictors for the Use of Wearable Health Care Devices by US Adults: Insights from a National Survey
Abstract
Background: Despite the growing popularity of wearable health care devices (from fitness trackes such as Fitbit to smartwatches such as Apple Watch and more sophisticated devices that can collect information on metrics such as blood pressure, glucose levels, and oxygen levels), we have a limited understanding about the actual use and key factors affecting the use of these devices by US adults.
Objective: The main objective of this study was to examine the use of wearable health care devices and the key predictors of wearable use by US adults.
Methods: Using a national survey of 4551 respondents, we examined the usage patterns of wearable health care devices (use of wearables, frequency of their use, and willingness to share health data from a wearable with a provider) and a set of predictors that pertain to personal demographics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, and household income), individual health (general health, presence of chronic conditions, weight perceptions, frequency of provider visits, and attitude towards exercise), and technology self-efficacy using logistic regression analysis.
Results: About 30% (1266/4551) of US adults use wearable health care devices. Among the users, nearly half (47.33%) use the devices every day, with a majority (82.38% weighted) willing to share the health data from wearables with their care providers. Women (16.25%), White individuals (19.74%), adults aged 18-50 years (19.52%), those with some level of college education or college graduates (25.60%), and those with annual household incomes greater than US $75,000 (17.66%) were most likely to report using wearable health care devices. We found that the use of wearables declines with age: Adults aged >50 years were less likely to use wearables compared to those aged 18-34 years (odds ratios [OR] 0.46-0.57). Women (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.96-1.65), White individuals (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97-2.79), college graduates (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.31-3.51), and those with annual household incomes greater than US $75,000 (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.39-4.86) were more likely to use wearables. US adults who reported feeling healthier (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.98-1.39), were overweight (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27), enjoyed exercise (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06-1.43), and reported higher levels of technology self-efficacy (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21-1.46) were more likely to adopt and use wearables for tracking or monitoring their health.
Conclusions: The potential of wearable health care devices is under-realized, with less than one-third of US adults actively using these devices. With only younger, healthier, wealthier, more educated, technoliterate adults using wearables, other groups have been left behind. More concentrated efforts by clinicians, device makers, and health care policy makers are needed to bridge this divide and improve the use of wearable devices among larger sections of American society.
Keywords: HINTS; health technology adoption and use; mobile health; smart wearables; wearable healthcare devices.
©Ranganathan Chandrasekaran, Vipanchi Katthula, Evangelos Moustakas. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 16.10.2020.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Too old for technology? Use of wearable healthcare devices by older adults and their willingness to share health data with providers.Health Informatics J. 2021 Oct-Dec;27(4):14604582211058073. doi: 10.1177/14604582211058073. Health Informatics J. 2021. PMID: 34802315
-
Willingness to Share Data From Wearable Health and Activity Trackers: Analysis of the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey Data.JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Dec 13;9(12):e29190. doi: 10.2196/29190. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021. PMID: 34898448 Free PMC article.
-
Wearable Technology Acceptance in Health Care Based on National Culture Differences: Cross-Country Analysis Between Chinese and Swiss Consumers.J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 22;22(10):e18801. doi: 10.2196/18801. J Med Internet Res. 2020. PMID: 33090108 Free PMC article.
-
Wearing the Future-Wearables to Empower Users to Take Greater Responsibility for Their Health and Care: Scoping Review.JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Jul 13;10(7):e35684. doi: 10.2196/35684. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022. PMID: 35830222 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The Impact of Wearable Technologies in Health Research: Scoping Review.JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Jan 25;10(1):e34384. doi: 10.2196/34384. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022. PMID: 35076409 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Associations between perceived usefulness and willingness to use smart healthcare devices among Chinese older adults: The multiple mediating effect of technology interactivity and technology anxiety.Digit Health. 2024 May 27;10:20552076241254194. doi: 10.1177/20552076241254194. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec. Digit Health. 2024. PMID: 38812850 Free PMC article.
-
Early adverse physiological event detection using commercial wearables: challenges and opportunities.NPJ Digit Med. 2024 May 23;7(1):136. doi: 10.1038/s41746-024-01129-1. NPJ Digit Med. 2024. PMID: 38783001 Free PMC article.
-
Monitoring sleep using smartphone data in a population of college students.Npj Ment Health Res. 2023 Mar 17;2(1):3. doi: 10.1038/s44184-023-00023-0. Npj Ment Health Res. 2023. PMID: 38609478 Free PMC article.
-
Utilizing Wearable Device Data for Syndromic Surveillance: A Fever Detection Approach.Sensors (Basel). 2024 Mar 12;24(6):1818. doi: 10.3390/s24061818. Sensors (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38544080 Free PMC article.
-
Sex-specific factors associated with acceptance of smartwatches among urban older adults: the Itabashi longitudinal study on aging.Front Public Health. 2024 Feb 23;12:1261275. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1261275. eCollection 2024. Front Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38476490 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Fotiadis D, Glaros C, Likas A. Wearable Medical Devices. In: Akay M, editor. Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2006. Apr 14,
-
- Wearable Medical Devices Market Size, Share and Industry Analysis by Product (Diagnostic & Patient Monitoring, Therapeutics), by Application (Remote Patient Monitoring and Home Healthcare, Sports and Fitness), by Distribution Channel (Retail Pharmacies, Online Pharmacies, Hypermarkets) and Regional Forecast 2019-2026. Fortune Business Insights. 2019. Aug, [2020-08-22]. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/wearable-medica....
-
- Finkelstein EA, Haaland BA, Bilger M, Sahasranaman A, Sloan RA, Nang EEK, Evenson KR. Effectiveness of activity trackers with and without incentives to increase physical activity (TRIPPA): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2016 Dec;4(12):983–995. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30284-4. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Burnham JP, Lu C, Yaeger LH, Bailey TC, Kollef MH. Using wearable technology to predict health outcomes: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Sep 01;25(9):1221–1227. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy082. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29982520 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources