ArticleDigital health
A scoping review of the patient experience with wearable technology.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Usability and Technology Acceptance of a Wearable Monitoring System Among Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- At-Home Sleep Electroencephalography Assessment in Young and Older Adults Using a Novel Wireless Soft Electronics Sleep Monitoring System: Experimental Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Exploring mHealth interventions for medication management: a scoping review of digital tools, implementation barriers, and patient outcomes.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This scoping review explores patients' experience with wearable technology. Its aims are to: (a) examine studies that contain empirical findings related to patients' experience with wearables; (b) compare these findings within and across studies; and (c) identify areas in need of greater understanding. Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Review (PRISMA) guided approach was followed. Four databases of peer-reviewed articles (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched for empirical articles involving patients' experience of using wearable technology. A standardized data abstraction form recorded relevant information on the articles identified. Data analysis included frequency counts for all abstracted categories; and itemized (by study) findings related to patients' wearable experience including satisfaction. Results: Forty-six studies comprised the final review sample. The research literature examining patients' wearable experience is characterized by variety in terms of sample sizes, medical situations and wearable devices examined, research settings, and geographic location. This literature supports a positive patient experience with wearables in terms of satisfaction and usability, although the evidence is mixed when it comes to comfort. The moderate to higher satisfaction, usability, and comfort findings across studies do not suggest any sort of pattern with respect to the type of wearable, medical situation, or location. Conclusions: The review findings suggest that health care organizations should view wearable technology as a viable complement to traditional aspects of patient care. However, from a patient experience standpoint, there is still much to know and validate in this regard, especially as the technology continues to advance.
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.