ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2023
Expensive Ornaments or Essential Technology? A Qualitative Metasynthesis to Identify Lessons From User Experiences of Wearable Devices and Smart Technology in Health Care.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- "It's like a toxic relationship": Examining internal conflict experienced in wearable activity tracker users.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- A Step Toward Building User-Relevant Health Care Technology.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review sought to describe experiences of using wearable devices worn on the body for the purpose of tracking health status and movement and or using in-home health-related smart technologies. In this qualitative metasynthesis, five databases were searched from database inception to May 11, 2022. Included were qualitative studies of the experiences of using wearable or in-home sensors for monitoring health. The primary outcome was any study that reported experiences of using smart health technology using a wearable device or sensors in the home. Eighteen studies covering a range of technologies and health user groups were critically appraised, and data were extracted. Primary study themes were synthesized, and participant quotes across the studies were organized to construct broad themes and subthemes. The three themes included the following: technology as a motivator; reassurance from technology; and animosity toward technology. Technology was welcomed when participants experienced benefits such as reassurance that their health was being tracked and they were aware when problems arose. Participants appreciated the technology could motivate them to challenge themselves on the basis of feedback from the device. Some participants appeared to wish to avoid the technology but experienced resentment when they could not conceal the technology and still receive the other benefits. Data collected should be accessible to the technology user and the clinician together, to enhance transparency and reduce the power differential. TrialRegistration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022325402.
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.