Wearable Tech Can Catch Health Issues Before Doctors

The physical body is the latest target of the digital revolution. There is little question that wearable technology is the next logical step in the development of individualized healthcare. Future predictions and technological advances make it a highly attractive area of investment and for consumer purchases. Currently, its predicted revenue in the healthcare industry will reach $69.2 billion by 2028.

Top IT firms are racing to attract customers for their wearable tech advancements because of this promising future of the wearable business. Tech giants like Samsung, Apple, and Microsoft have released new products in recent years. And digital wearable health devices are showing promise in managing chronic conditions, promoting preventative healthcare, and improving patient engagement, according to research conducted in 2024.

Improvements in sensor technology, AI integration, and data analysis are also enabling more personalized and accurate health monitoring. However, there are still issues with data privacy, regulatory frameworks, and device validation that need to be resolved before these devices can reach their full potential. But today wearable devices are adding a new layer of both protection and vulnerability to our health and our health records.

When it comes to diagnosing and monitoring individuals, wearables might be useful. Worldwide health systems, like the National Health Service in England, have acknowledged the potential of wearable technology to aid with health care, and this acknowledgment has earned them a spot in the common strategic Long Term Plan. Wearables, however, are not just for patients’ specialized medical gadgets. For customers who are concerned about their health, top IT companies have started investigating wearable health devices.

With its January 2019 launch, the “NHS Long Term Plan” lays out NHS England’s goals for healthcare over the next decade, including how the organization will spend NHS funds to enhance patient care and health outcomes throughout the country.

According to a large body of research, wearables can help people take charge of their health by facilitating self-diagnosis, behavior modification, and monitoring. If the technology is to be used widely, it requires more promotion and support from providers to encourage uptake; more short-term investment to upskill employees, particularly in data analysis; and overcoming barriers to use, especially by improving device accuracy, are all factors that will contribute to greater wearable adoption and engagement.

Participatory health informatics (PHI) means considering the role of technology in assisting individuals with self-management and decision-making by also improving health literacy and the physician-patient relationship so that individuals can become more involved in the aspects of their health and care.

Historically, research in the PHI field has predominantly been based on social media and internet-based applications, with patient empowerment having been identified as the most common theme in this body of research. However, wearables are just beginning to be considered as part of PHI given recent technological advancements. Therefore, similar research is now required to examine whether wearables can empower individuals in ways similar to those regarding domains such as self-management, decision-making, and the physician-patient relationship.

And the inclusion of patient empowerment must also be calculated and addressed in a world where an almost collegial relationship is formed between patient and physician. This will be a major change from our past relationships where patients were poorly received once they began researching their illnesses on the Internet and questioned their healthcare provider. “Oh, you’ve been using Dr. Google, I see,” was a common put-down. Respect is receiving new consideration and pointing out our lapses in possible healthcare education and sensitive training toward patients must be required. Can challenging patients be acceptable, as formerly was the case?

Remote patient monitoring using wearables is becoming more important in light of the growing provider shortages that exacerbate geographically based disparities.

Where Do We Need Wearable?

One area of intense interest is related to patients with potential cardiac issues and here we note that much is yet to be accomplished for these patients. Only eight studies of the 31,12 papers retrieved from a systematic search were randomized controlled trials. The research was mostly focused on consumer-grade wearables that were modified to monitor heart failure (HF). The majority of these studies were conducted in the feasibility testing phase. Out of all the wearables that were mentioned, only two were approved by the FDA for HF RM (remote monitoring). A major obstacle to wearables’ incorporation into HF therapy is the lack of convincing evidence regarding their actual influence on HF management. This must be a concerning issue.

High expenses, low functional capacity and quality of life, and high rates of morbidity and mortality marked the complex and sometimes fatal syndrome known as heart failure. High expenses, low functional capacity and quality of life, and high rates of morbidity and mortality mark the complex and sometimes fatal syndrome known as heart failure (HF). Over 64 million individuals across the globe are impacted by HF and we do not truly know the total number because not everyone with potential HF has been identified. As a result, reducing its monetary and social impact has risen to the status of a top public health concern on an international scale. Therefore, this should be one of the aims of wearables — helping to reduce mortality.

But digitals have a whole host of potential uses currently that include fall detection, glucose monitoring, activity monitoring (steps tracking), sleep quality, blood pressure monitoring, and potentially high-risk pregnancies.

Unaddressed Issues of Wearables

Concerns about privacy and data sharing are only two of the many hazards and difficulties linked to wearable technology. The literature has mainly addressed technological or ethical concerns, treating them as distinct domains of study; nevertheless, wearables’ potential to enhance biomedical knowledge acquisition, development, and application has received scant attention.

Three areas that have been inadequately studied include screening, detection, and prediction. Screening involves searching through datasets obtained by monitoring for particular diseases and the people linked to them. Passive sensors that monitor things like motion, steps, light, pressure, sound, etc. are typically the basis of wearables used for this purpose.

One application of wearable technology is screening for sleep apnea by tracking the wearer’s heart rate and breathing patterns while they sleep. Detection is a process that is closely connected to screening. It is common practice to employ wearables to detect conditions and notify individual users when monitoring particular conditions in populations. Detection involves looking for patterns and features in the data gathered from wearable monitoring devices that could be indicative of certain medical disorders. Once we have this data, the possibility of greater detection of issues may emerge.

It is still very difficult to predict clinical outcomes following hospital discharge. There has been little success with strategies aimed at predicting and preventing death after discharge, readmissions, and trips to the emergency department (ED). Early interventions on modifiable risk variables might minimize morbidity, death, readmissions, and emergency department visits if predictive models could be improved. Wearable technology can monitor activity levels, sleep patterns, and tachy- or bradyarrhythmias, some of the modifiable risk factors for these clinical outcomes. Wearable digital devices might make significant differences in the ability to predict future health issues.

It has been shown that using more aspects of complex data from wearable technology would most likely enhance prediction models. One study that made use of 89 Fitbit data characteristics had an 88.3 percent success rate in predicting hospital readmission. Compared to other models, theirs performed far better in predicting readmission using typical retrospective clinical data.

Are digital, non-invasive wearables a viable and important contribution to healthcare now and in the future? Unquestionably, they are providing information as a continuous monitoring system in real-time and can prevent fatalities. The cost of the devices, availability, and insurance reimbursement will undoubtedly factor into how many patients can avail themselves of this technology. Lower-income patients and those in health deserts will be less likely to have access to them.