ArticleJAMA network open2023
Use of Wearable Devices in Individuals With or at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease in the US, 2019 to 2020.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
99 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 130 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuous Movement Monitoring at Home Through Wearable Devices: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Cumulative Burden of Digital Health Technologies for Patients With Multimorbidity: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Relationships between rest-activity rhythms, cancer-related fatigue, and quality of life: Results from a time-restricted eating randomized controlled trial.Chronobiology international · 2026Trial
- Adherence to Accelerometer Use in Older Adults Undergoing mHealth Cardiac Rehabilitation: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Isolating the role of researcher observation on reactivity to the measurement of physical activity.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2025Trial
- Awareness, Preferences, and Willingness to Download Pregnancy Health Management Apps Among Women in Louisiana: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Wearable smartwatches for atrial fibrillation detection and burden estimation after ablation: comparison with continuous monitoring.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Usability and Technology Acceptance of a Wearable Monitoring System Among Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Assessing physical activity and sleep patterns in glaucoma using wearable devices.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Consumer Smartwatch Technology in Health and Performance Research: Validity, Limitations, and Real-World Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multicenter real world validation of on device single lead ECG parameters for remote cardiac assessment.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Article
- Article
- Traditional Disease Risk Factors Outperform Epigenetic Clocks as Predictors of Non-Communicable Disease Morbidity in a Middle-Aged Cohort.Aging cell · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Reciprocal Relationship Between Cardiovascular Risk and Attainment of Blood Pressure and Cholesterol Targets in Users of a Mobile Health App.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- Wearable Devices and Data Sharing in the US.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Increasing Use of Wearable Devices for Health or Activity Tracking Among Adults with Chronic Diseases in the US.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2026Article
- Article
- The Evolving Utility of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools for the Detection of Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies: From Potential to Implementation.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Wearable devices may be able to improve cardiovascular health, but the current adoption of these devices could be skewed in ways that could exacerbate disparities. Objective: To assess sociodemographic patterns of use of wearable devices among adults with or at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the US population in 2019 to 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study included a nationally representative sample of the US adults from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Data were analyzed from June 1 to November 15, 2022. Exposures: Self-reported CVD (history of heart attack, angina, or congestive heart failure) and CVD risk factors (≥1 risk factor among hypertension, diabetes, obesity, or cigarette smoking). Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported access to wearable devices, frequency of use, and willingness to share health data with clinicians (referred to as health care providers in the survey). Results: Of the overall 9303 HINTS participants representing 247.3 million US adults (mean [SD] age, 48.8 [17.9] years; 51% [95% CI, 49%-53%] women), 933 (10.0%) representing 20.3 million US adults had CVD (mean [SD] age, 62.2 [17.0] years; 43% [95% CI, 37%-49%] women), and 5185 (55.7%) representing 134.9 million US adults were at risk for CVD (mean [SD] age, 51.4 [16.9] years; 43% [95% CI, 37%-49%] women). In nationally weighted assessments, an estimated 3.6 million US adults with CVD (18% [95% CI, 14%-23%]) and 34.5 million at risk for CVD (26% [95% CI, 24%-28%]) used wearable devices compared with an estimated 29% (95% CI, 27%-30%) of the overall US adult population. After accounting for differences in demographic characteristics, cardiovascular risk factor profile, and socioeconomic features, older age (odds ratio [OR], 0.35 [95% CI, 0.26-0.48]), lower educational attainment (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.24-0.52]), and lower household income (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.29-0.60]) were independently associated with lower use of wearable devices in US adults at risk for CVD. Among wearable device users, a smaller proportion of adults with CVD reported using wearable devices every day (38% [95% CI, 26%-50%]) compared with overall (49% [95% CI, 45%-53%]) and at-risk (48% [95% CI, 43%-53%]) populations. Among wearable device users, an estimated 83% (95% CI, 70%-92%) of US adults with CVD and 81% (95% CI, 76%-85%) at risk for CVD favored sharing wearable device data with their clinicians to improve care. Conclusions and Relevance: Among individuals with or at risk for CVD, fewer than 1 in 4 use wearable devices, with only half of those reporting consistent daily use. As wearable devices emerge as tools that can improve cardiovascular health, the current use patterns could exacerbate disparities unless there are strategies to ensure equitable adoption.
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.