ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Perspectives on Remote Monitoring via Smartphones and Wearables Among Individuals With Lived Experience or at Risk of Eating Disorders ("This Could Go Very, Very Wrong"): Qualitative Interview Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Remote measurement technology (RMT) is increasingly used in health research to collect real-world data relevant to clinical states (eg, sleep, activity, and stress). Concerns exist about the impact of remote tracking via personal devices and wearables on individuals with or at risk of eating disorders (EDs) by promoting a focus on exercise, diet, and appearance. There is a lack of research applying RMT to EDs. Objective: This study aimed to explore how smartphone- and wearable-based RMTs influence eating-, exercise-, and weight-related experiences among individuals with a history of or at risk of EDs and to identify perceived benefits, harms, and recommendations for their use in this population. Methods: In total, 14 semistructured interviews were conducted with former participants of Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse: Major Depressive Disorder, a 2-year digital health study tracking depression outcomes via RMTs. Participants were included in this follow-up if they had disclosed a history of a comorbid ED or were within the at-risk age range (18-30 years) for EDs during Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse: Major Depressive Disorder and displayed subclinical ED symptoms (Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale). Interviews explored the impact of app engagement and wearables (Fitbits) on food, activity, and weight-related behaviors and attitudes. Template analysis was adopted to capture themes guided by the focus on ED-relevant domains. Results: In total, 6 themes captured participants' experiences with RMTs across clinical status and presentation. Participants broadly appreciated the convenience and reflective potential, while some described emotional strain linked to constant self-tracking. Health data impacted participants' eating and exercise habits through a dynamic process from awareness to cognition to action, fostering healthy routines or obsessive patterns, depending on emotional state, ED presentation, and recovery stage. Self-tracking appeared to mirror illness stage, supporting ED recovery among those with greater distance from illness, but risking reinforcement of compulsive patterns among those with residual or emerging symptoms. Participants' recommendations for future studies in EDs stressed balancing autonomy with safeguards for vulnerable individuals. Conclusions: These exploratory findings, drawn from individuals with lived ED experience and young people at subclinical risk, suggest that RMT use was shaped by recovery stage and contextual factors, rather than being inherently beneficial or harmful. While findings should not be interpreted as evidence of RMT safety or acceptability in ED cohorts broadly, they raise important questions about ethical RMT design, including the selection of wearables, access to data, and researcher communication with participants.
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.