Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34383684›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

General Practitioners' Perceptions of the Use of Wearable Electronic Health Monitoring Devices: Qualitative Analysis of Risks and Benefits.

Lucia Volpato, María Del Río Carral, Nicolas Senn, Marie Santiago Delefosse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Health Literacy Applications in Patients With Cancer.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Artificial intelligence assisted acute patient journey.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022
    Review
  15. Implementing Virtual Care in Neurology - Challenges and Pitfalls.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lucia VolpatoResearch Centre for Psychology of Health, Aging and Sport Examination, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8116-8929
María Del Río CarralResearch Centre for Psychology of Health, Aging and Sport Examination, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1676-3964
Nicolas SennDepartment of Family Medicine, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9986-3249
Marie Santiago DelefosseResearch Centre for Psychology of Health, Aging and Sport Examination, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7319-0560

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

General PractitionersWearable Electronic DevicesHumansPerceptionPhysician-Patient RelationsRisk Assessmentactivity trackersgeneral practitionershealth monitoringhealth psychologyhealth wearablesmHealthmind mapsqualitative researchself-trackingwearable devices

Identifiers

PMID34383684
PMCPMC8386401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.