ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2024
Attributes, Methods, and Frameworks Used to Evaluate Wearables and Their Companion mHealth Apps: Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Consumer-oriented (wearable) sleep technology: a systematic SWOT analysis and recommendations for athletes and fitness enthusiasts.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
- Digital biomarkers for early agitation detection in dementia: a scoping review of emerging wearable and smart technologies for personalized care.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Design of a Mobile App and a Clinical Trial Management System for Cognitive Health and Dementia Risk Reduction: User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR aging · 2025Trial
- [Digital rehabilitation with smart devices : Clinical evidence and practical implications].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Usability and Technology Acceptance of a Wearable Monitoring System Among Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Wearable Sensing for Clinical Physiology Monitoring: Emerging Paradigms.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Development and Psychometric Validation of a Usability Instrument Based on ISO 25010 for Electronic Health Record Systems in Peruvian Health Care Settings: Methodological Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Smart Bracelets Among Chinese Pregnant and Postpartum Women: Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Digital health solutions for chronic disease physical activity management: wearable devices, artificial intelligence, and public health implementation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Using Crowdsourcing Internet of Things Technology to Reduce Caregiver Worry in Dementia-Related Lost Episodes: Longitudinal Observational Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Observational
- Health Motivation as a Predictor of mHealth Engagement Across BMI: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- User Experience in mHealth Research: Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Developments (2007-2023).JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Usability of Inertial Measurement Units for Measuring and Monitoring Activity Post-Stroke: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Usage Trends and Data Sharing Practices of Healthcare Wearable Devices Among US Adults: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Wearables in Chronomedicine and Interpretation of Circadian Health.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Usability Testing of a Digitized Interventional Prehabilitation Tool for Health Care Professionals and Patients Before Major Surgeries: Formative and Summative Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Virtual Reality and Digital Interventions in Cancer Pain Relief: A New Frontier in Supportive Oncology Care.Journal of mid-life healthReview
- Impact of cladribine tablets on PROs in patients with MS: insights from the 1st interim analysis of the CLADFIT-MS study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWearable devices, mobile technologies, and their combination have been accepted into clinical use to better assess the physical fitness and quality of life of patients and as preventive measures. Usability is pivotal for overcoming constraints and gaining users' acceptance of technology such as wearables and their companion mobile health (mHealth) apps. However, owing to limitations in design and evaluation, interactive wearables and mHealth apps have often been restricted from their full potential.
objectiveThis study aims to identify studies that have incorporated wearable devices and determine their frequency of use in conjunction with mHealth apps or their combination. Specifically, this study aims to understand the attributes and evaluation techniques used to evaluate usability in the health care domain for these technologies and their combinations.
methodsWe conducted an extensive search across 4 electronic databases, spanning the last 30 years up to December 2021. Studies including the keywords "wearable devices," "mobile apps," "mHealth apps," "physiological data," "usability," "user experience," and "user evaluation" were considered for inclusion. A team of 5 reviewers screened the collected publications and charted the features based on the research questions. Subsequently, we categorized these characteristics following existing usability and wearable taxonomies. We applied a methodological framework for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.
resultsA total of 382 reports were identified from the search strategy, and 68 articles were included. Most of the studies (57/68, 84%) involved the simultaneous use of wearables and connected mobile apps. Wrist-worn commercial consumer devices such as wristbands were the most prevalent, accounting for 66% (45/68) of the wearables identified in our review. Approximately half of the data from the medical domain (32/68, 47%) focused on studies involving participants with chronic illnesses or disorders. Overall, 29 usability attributes were identified, and 5 attributes were frequently used for evaluation: satisfaction (34/68, 50%), ease of use (27/68, 40%), user experience (16/68, 24%), perceived usefulness (18/68, 26%), and effectiveness (15/68, 22%). Only 10% (7/68) of the studies used a user- or human-centered design paradigm for usability evaluation.
conclusionsOur scoping review identified the types and categories of wearable devices and mHealth apps, their frequency of use in studies, and their implementation in the medical context. In addition, we examined the usability evaluation of these technologies: methods, attributes, and frameworks. Within the array of available wearables and mHealth apps, health care providers encounter the challenge of selecting devices and companion apps that are effective, user-friendly, and compatible with user interactions. The current gap in usability and user experience in health care research limits our understanding of the strengths and limitations of wearable technologies and their companion apps. Additional research is necessary to overcome these limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.