Information regarding the use of wearable devices in clinical research, including disease areas, intervention techniques, trends in device types, and sample size targets, remains elusive. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of clinical research trends related to wristband wearable devices in research planning and examined their applications in clinical investigations.
Methods
As this study identified trends in the adoption of wearable devices during the planning phase of clinical research, including specific disease areas and targeted number of intervention cases, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov—a prominent platform for registering and disseminating clinical research. Since wrist-worn devices represent a large share of the market, we focused on wrist-worn devices and selected the most representative models among them. The main analysis focused on major wearable devices to facilitate data analysis and interpretation, but other wearables were also surveyed for reference. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov with the keywords “ActiGraph,”“Apple Watch,”“Empatica,”“Fitbit,”“Garmin,” and “wearable devices” to obtain studies published up to 21 August 2022. This initial search yielded 3214 studies. After excluding duplicate National Clinical Trial studies (the overlap was permissible among different device types except for wearable devices), our analysis focused on 2930 studies, including simple, time-series, and type-specific assessments of various variables.
Results
Overall, an increasing number of clinical studies have incorporated wearable devices since 2012. While ActiGraph and Fitbit initially dominated this landscape, the use of other devices has steadily increased, constituting approximately 10% of the total after 2015. Observational studies outnumbered intervention studies, with behavioral and device-based interventions being particularly prevalent. Regarding disease types, cancer and cardiovascular diseases accounted for approximately 20% of the total. Notably, 114 studies adopted multiple devices simultaneously within the context of their clinical investigations.
Conclusions
Our findings revealed that the utilization of wearable devices for data collection and behavioral interventions in various disease areas has been increasing over time since 2012. The increase in the number of studies over the past 3 years has been particularly significant, suggesting that this trend will continue to accelerate in the future. Devices and their evaluation methods that have undergone thorough validation, confirmed their accuracy, and adhered to established legal regulations will likely assume a pivotal role in evaluations, allowing for remote clinical trials. Moreover, behavioral intervention therapy utilizing apps is becoming more extensive, and we expect to see more examples that will lead to their approval as programmed medical devices in the future.
de ZambottiMRosasLColrainIM, et al. The sleep of the ring: comparison of the ŌURA sleep tracker against polysomnography. Behav Sleep Med2019; 17(2): 124–136.
3.
AnjewierdenSHumpherysJLaPageMJ, et al. Detection of tachyarrhythmias in a large cohort of infants using direct-to-consumer heart rate monitoring. J Pediatr2021; 232: 147–153.
4.
OusakaDHiraiKSakanoN, et al. Initial evaluation of a novel electrocardiography sensor-embedded fabric wear during a full marathon. Heart Vessels2022; 37(3): 443–450.
KangSWChoiHParkH, et al. The development of an IMU integrated clothes for postural monitoring using conductive yarn and interconnecting technology. Sensors2017; 17(11): 2560.
7.
BandodkarAJJiaWWangJ. Tattoo-based wearable electrochemical devices: a review. Electroanalysis2015; 27(3): 562–572.
GukKHanGLimJ, et al. Evolution of wearable devices with real-time disease monitoring for personalized healthcare. Nanomaterials2019; 9(6): 813.
10.
SharmaABadeaMTiwariS, et al. Wearable biosensors: an alternative and practical approach in healthcare and disease monitoring. Molecules2021; 26(3): 748.
11.
FullerDColwellELowJ, et al. Reliability and validity of commercially available wearable devices for measuring steps, energy expenditure, and heart rate: systematic review. JMIR mHealth uHealth2020; 8(9): e18694.
12.
MückJEÜnalBButtH, et al. Market and patent analyses of wearables in medicine. Trends Biotechnol2019; 37(6): 563–566.
HowardLSRosenkranzSFrantzRP, et al. Assessing daily life physical activity by actigraphy in pulmonary arterial hypertension: insights from the randomized controlled study with Selexipag (TRACE). Chest2023; 163(2): 407–418.
15.
SantistebanJASteinMABergmameL, et al. Effect of extended-release dexmethylphenidate and mixed amphetamine salts on sleep: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study in youth with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. CNS Drugs2014; 28(9): 825–833.
16.
GringrasPNirTBreddyJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of pediatric prolonged-release melatonin for insomnia in children with autism spectrum disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry2017; 56: 948–957.e4.
RingevalMWagnerGDenfordJ, et al. Fitbit-based interventions for healthy lifestyle outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res2020; 22(10): e23954.
19.
St FleurRGSt GeorgeSMLeiteR, et al. Use of fitbit devices in physical activity intervention studies across the life course: narrative review. JMIR mHealth uHealth2020; 22(10): e23411.
FredianiJKBienvenidaAFLiJ, et al. Physical fitness and activity changes after a 24-week soccer-based adaptation of the US diabetes prevention program intervention in Hispanic men. Prog Cardiovasc Dis2020; 63: 775–785.
MuellerMKAndersonECKingEK, et al. Null effects of therapy dog interaction on adolescent anxiety during a laboratory-based social evaluative stressor. Anxiety Stress Coping2021; 34(4): 365–380.
29.
De Arriba-PérezFCaeiro-RodríguezMSantos-GagoJM. Collection and processing of data from wrist wearable devices in heterogeneous and multiple-user scenarios. Sensors2016; 16(9): 1538.
30.
ChanAChanDLeeH, et al. Reporting adherence, validity and physical activity measures of wearable activity trackers in medical research: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform2022; 160: 104696.
31.
BeauchampULPappotHHolländer-MieritzC. The use of wearables in clinical trials during cancer treatment: systematic review. JMIR mHealth uHealth2020; 8(11): e22006.
32.
CoughlinSSCaplanLSStoneR. Use of consumer wearable devices to promote physical activity among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors: a review of health intervention studies. J Cancer Surviv2020; 14(3): 386–392.
33.
BelcherBRKangDWYunkerAG, et al. Interventions to reduce sedentary behavior in cancer patients and survivors: a systematic review. Curr Oncol Rep2022; 24(11): 1593–1605.
34.
QiuLYeMTongY, et al. Promoting physical activity among cancer survivors: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. Support Care Cancer2023; 31(5): 301.
35.
AkinosunASPolsonRDiaz-SkeeteY, et al. Digital technology interventions for risk factor modification in patients with cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth2021; 9(3): e21061.
36.
JiangXMingWKYouJHS. The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions on the management of cardiovascular diseases: systematic review. J Med Internet Res2019; 21(6): e13166.
37.
HannanALHardersMPHingW, et al. Impact of wearable physical activity monitoring devices with exercise prescription or advice in the maintenance phase of cardiac rehabilitation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil2019; 11: 14.
38.
WongvibulsinSHabeosEEHuynhPP, et al. Digital health interventions for cardiac rehabilitation: systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res2021; 23(2): e18773.
39.
MizunoAChangolkarSPatelMS. Wearable devices to monitor and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease: evidence and opportunities. Annu Rev Med2021; 72: 459–471.
40.
ThomsonEANussKComstockA, et al. Heart rate measures from the Apple Watch, Fitbit Charge HR 2, and electrocardiogram across different exercise intensities. J Sports Sci2019; 37(12): 1411–1419.
41.
BaiYHibbingPMantisC, et al. Comparative evaluation of heart rate-based monitors: Apple Watch vs Fitbit Charge HR. J Sports Sci2018; 36(15): 1734–1741.
42.
ShapiroAMarinsekNClayI, et al. Characterizing COVID-19 and influenza illnesses in the real world via person-generated health data. Patterns2020; 2(1): 100188.
43.
DeeringSGradeMMUppalJK, et al. Accelerating research with technology: rapid recruitment for a large-scale web-based sleep study. JMIR Res Protoc2019; 8(1): e10974.
44.
Loncar-TurukaloTZdravevskiEda SilvaJM, et al. Literature on wearable technology for connected health: scoping review of research trends, advances, and barriers. J Med Internet Res2019; 21: e14017.
ClinicalTrials.gov. Evaluation of ECG transmission and AI types using Apple Watch ECGs and symptoms data collected using a Mayo iPhone app, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05324566 (accessed 13 May 2023).
47.
PerezMVMahaffeyKWHedlinH, et al. Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med2019; 381(20): 1909–1917.
LubitzSAFaraneshAZAtlasSJ, et al. Rationale and design of a large population study to validate software for the assessment of atrial fibrillation from data acquired by a consumer tracker or smartwatch: the Fitbit heart study. Am Heart J2021; 238: 16–26.
51.
StrainTWijndaeleKDempseyPC, et al. Wearable-device-measured physical activity and future health risk. Nat Med2020; 26(9): 1385–1391.
52.
RadinJMWineingerNETopolEJ, et al. Harnessing wearable device data to improve state-level real-time surveillance of influenza-like illness in the USA: a population-based study. Lancet Digit Health2020; 2(2): e85–e93.
53.
HicksJLAlthoffTSosicR, et al. Best practices for analyzing large-scale health data from wearables and smartphone apps. NPJ Digit Med2019; 2: 45.
54.
Schüssler-Fiorenza RoseSMContrepoisKMoneghettiKJ, et al. A longitudinal big data approach for precision health. Nat Med2019; 25(5): 792–804.
55.
GooddaySMKarlinEAlfaranoA, et al. An alternative to the light touch digital health remote study: the stress and recovery in frontline COVID-19 healthcare workers study. JMIR Form Res2021; 5(12): e32165.
56.
ClinicalTrials.gov. A study to investigate if early atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnosis reduces risk of events like stroke in the real-world, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04276441 (accessed 13 May 2023).
ClinicalTrials.gov. Weight management and health behavior intervention in lowering cancer risk for BRCA positive and lynch syndrome families, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04125914 (accessed 13 May 2023).
59.
ClinicalTrials.gov. Exercise intervention after cancer treatment for improving health in stage II-III breast cancer survivors (PACT), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03523195 (accessed 13 May 2023).
ClinicalTrials.gov. A study to investigate if early atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnosis reduces risk of events like stroke in the real-world, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04276441 (accessed 13 May 2023).
ClinicalTrials.gov. Portable measurement methods combined with artificial intelligence in detection of atrial fibrillation (WB-AF), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04917653 (accessed 13 May 2023).
ClinicalTrials.gov. Evaluation of a family intervention program for the management of overweight or obese children (NEREU), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01878994 (accessed 13 May 2023).
ClinicalTrials.gov. Development and feasibility of an incentive scheme to promote walking/cycling to school (RIGHT_TRACKS), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02282631 (accessed 13 May 2023).
ClinicalTrials.gov. Physical activity promotion in children using a novel smartphone game: a pilot randomized controlled trial, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04593199 (accessed 13 May 2023).
ClinicalTrials.gov. STEP together: an effectiveness-implementation study of social incentives and physical activity, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04942535 (accessed 13 May 2023).
79.
ClinicalTrials.gov. Mind-body interventions to mitigate effects of media use on sleep in early adolescents (Sleepazoid), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04550507 (accessed 13 May 2023).
ClinicalTrials.gov. Adapting sleep and yoga interventions for maximal effectiveness in low-income populations (CALYPSO), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03392194 (accessed 13 May 2023).
WongJJSuttiratanaSCLalRA, et al. Discontinued use of the loop insulin dosing system: a mixed-methods investigation. Diabetes Technol Ther2022; 24(4): 241–248.
92.
SuttiratanaSCWongJJLanningMS, et al. Qualitative study of user experiences with loop, an open-source automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Technol Ther2022; 24(6): 416–423.
93.
LumJWBaileyRJBarnes-LomenV, et al. A real-world prospective study of the safety and effectiveness of the loop open source automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Technol Ther2021; 23(5): 367–375.
94.
KesavadevJSrinivasanSSabooB, et al. The do-it-yourself artificial pancreas: a comprehensive review. Diabetes Ther2020; 11(6): 1217–1235.
95.
DowneyLDonnellSOMelvinT, et al. A European regulatory pathway for tidepool loop following clearance in the United States?Diabet Med. Epub ahead of print 24 October 2023. DOI: 10.1111/dme.15246.
96.
BrauneKHussainSLalR. The first regulatory clearance of an open-source automated insulin delivery algorithm. J Diabetes Sci Technol2023; 17(5): 1139–1141.
97.
MercerKLiMGiangregorioL, et al. Behavior change techniques present in wearable activity trackers: a critical analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth2016; 4(2): e40.
98.
BrickwoodKJWatsonGO’BrienJ, et al. Consumer-based wearable activity trackers increase physical activity participation: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth2019; 7(4): e11819.
ClinicalTrials.gov. MechSens: dose-response relationship of in vivo ambulatory load and mechanosensitive cartilage biomarkers (MechSens), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04128566 (accessed 13 May 2023).
TaibiDMVitielloMVBarsnessS, et al. A randomized clinical trial of valerian fails to improve self-reported, polysomnographic, and actigraphic sleep in older women with insomnia. Sleep Med2009; 10(3): 319–328.
114.
CamargosEFLouzadaLLQuintasJL, et al. Trazodone improves sleep parameters in Alzheimer disease patients: a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry2014; 22(12): 1565–1574.
115.
MadsenMTHansenMVAndersenLT, et al. Effect of melatonin on sleep in the perioperative period after breast cancer: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Sleep Med2016; 12(2): 225–233.
116.
WillisLHSlentzCAJohnsonJL, et al. Effects of exercise training with and without ranolazine on peak oxygen consumption, daily physical activity, and quality of life in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol2019; 124: 655–660.
117.
HessALBenítez-PáezABlædelT, et al. The effect of inulin and resistant maltodextrin on weight loss during energy restriction: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded intervention. Eur J Nutr2020; 59(6): 2507–2524.
118.
TessierAJLévy-NdejuruJMoyenA, et al. A 16-week randomized controlled trial of a fish oil and whey protein-derived supplement to improve physical performance in older adults losing autonomy-A pilot study. PLoS ONE2021; 16(8): e0256386.
119.
CamargosEFLouzadaLLQuintasJL, et al. Trazodone improves sleep parameters in Alzheimer disease patients: a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry2014; 22(12): 1565–1574.
120.
RogersAde PaoliGSubbarayanS, et al. A systematic review of methods used to conduct decentralized clinical trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol2021; 88(6): 2843–2862.
121.
PriceJGoodsonNWarrenEJ, et al. Resilient design: decentralized trials recovered faster from the impact of COVID-19 than traditional site-based designs. Expert Rev Med Devices2021; 18(supp. 1): 1–4.
122.
NaikHPalaniappanLAshleyEA, et al. Digital health applications for pharmacogenetic clinical trials. Genes2020; 11(11): 1261.
123.
Van NormanGA. Decentralized clinical trials: the future of medical product development. JACC Basic Transl Sci2021; 6(4): 384–387.
de BrouwerWPatelCJManraiAK, et al. Empowering clinical research in a decentralized world. NPJ Digit Med2021; 4(1): 102.
126.
CoertRMHTimmisJKBoorsmaA, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on barriers and facilitators for the adoption of virtual clinical trials: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res2021; 23(7): e26813.
127.
LeeJLCerradaCJVangMKY, et al. The DiSCover project: protocol and baseline characteristics of a decentralized digital study assessing chronic pain outcomes and behavioral data. medRxiv2021; 22: 1–23.
128.
SommerCZuccolinDArneraV, et al. Building clinical trials around patients: evaluation and comparison of decentralized and conventional site types in patients with low back pain. Contemp Clin Trials Commun2018; 11: 120–126.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
