ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
General Practitioners' Perceptions of the Use of Wearable Electronic Health Monitoring Devices: Qualitative Analysis of Risks and Benefits.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Home-Based Connected Devices Combined With Statistical Process Control for the Early Detection of Respiratory Exacerbations by Patients With Cystic Fibrosis: Pilot Interventional Study With a Pre-Post Design.JMIR formative research · 2024Trial
- Physicians' Perceptions and Demand Regarding Clinical and Secondary Use of Patient-Generated Health Data: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- GPs' perceptions of digital technology for behavior change interventions for community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Health Literacy Applications in Patients With Cancer.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025Review
- Attitudes of healthcare professionals and researchers toward wearable and app derived patient generated health data.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Usage Trends and Data Sharing Practices of Healthcare Wearable Devices Among US Adults: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Adoption barriers and facilitators of wearable health devices with AI integration: a patient-centred perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Feasibility of continuous smart health monitoring in pregnant population: A mixed-method approach.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Understanding inherent influencing factors to digital health adoption in general practices through a mixed-methods analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- A Scale for Measuring Electronic Patient Engagement Behaviors: Development and Validation.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Impact of Wearable Technology on Heart Failure Management.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
- The Role of a Smart Health Ecosystem in Transforming the Management of Chronic Health Conditions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Factors affecting wearable ECG device adoption by general practitioners for atrial fibrillation screening: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence assisted acute patient journey.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Review
- Implementing Virtual Care in Neurology - Challenges and Pitfalls.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2022Review
- Attitudes and perspectives of nurses and physicians in South Korea towards the clinical use of person-generated health data.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid diffusion of wearable electronic health monitoring devices (wearable devices or wearables) among lay populations shows that self-tracking and self-monitoring are pervasively expanding, while influencing health-related practices. General practitioners are confronted with this phenomenon, since they often are the expert-voice that patients will seek.
objectiveThis article aims to explore general practitioners' perceptions of the role of wearable devices in family medicine and of their benefits, risks, and challenges associated with their use. It also explores their perceptions of the future development of these devices.
methodsData were collected during a medical conference among 19 Swiss general practitioners through mind maps. Maps were first sketched at the conference and their content was later compared with notes and reports written during the conference, which allowed for further integration of information. This tool represents an innovative methodology in qualitative research that allows for time-efficient data collection and data analysis.
resultsData analysis highlighted that wearable devices were described as user-friendly, adaptable devices that could enable performance monitoring and support medical research. Benefits included support for patients' empowerment and education, behavior change facilitation, better awareness of personal medical history and body functioning, efficient information transmission, and connection with the patient's medical network; however, general practitioners were concerned by a lack of scientific validation, lack of clarity over data protection, and the risk of stakeholder-associated financial interests. Other perceived risks included the promotion of an overly medicalized health culture and the risk of supporting patients' self-diagnosis and self-medication. General practitioners also feared increased pressure on their workload and a compromised doctor-patient relationship. Finally, they raised important questions that can guide wearables' future design and development, highlighting a need for general practitioners and medical professionals to be involved in the process.
conclusionsWearables play an increasingly central role in daily health-related practices, and general practitioners expressed a desire to become more involved in the development of such technologies. Described as useful information providers, wearables were generally positively perceived and did not seem to pose a threat to the doctor-patient relationship. However, general practitioners expressed their concern that wearables may fuel a self-monitoring logic, to the detriment of patients' autonomy and overall well-being. While wearables can contribute to health promotion, it is crucial to clarify the logic underpinning the design of such devices. Through the analysis of group discussions, this study contributes to the existing literature by presenting general practitioners' perceptions of wearable devices. This paper provides insight on general practitioners' perception to be considered in the context of product development and marketing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.