ArticleSports medicine - open2025
Global Insights on Wearable Technology Adoption by Coaches: Determinants of Current Use, Decision Making, and Future Intention To Use.
Article in Sports medicine - open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Technology on Snow and Ice: Innovation, Monitoring, and Performance for the Olympic Winter Games Milano Cortina 2026.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study examines whether coaches use wearable technologies to individualize training procedures, and which factors influence both their current use and future intention to use such devices.
methodsBased on the technology acceptance model, we developed a questionnaire to assess the use of wearable technology for individualizing training procedures. Following a pilot investigation that included an exploratory analysis of a sample of 36 coaches, multiple regression models were used to confirm these exploratory results in a larger sample of 130 coaches (n = 5 Tier 1, n = 47 Tier 2, n = 52 Tier 3, n = 22 Tier 4, n = 4 Tier 5) from 14 countries.
resultsAll surveyed coaches used some form of wearable technology to individualize training procedures. The most frequently used parameters included heart rate-related data (88.5% of participants) and GPS-related data (87.7% of participants). On a 1-7 Likert scale, coaches reported a 4.5 ± 1.4 ("somewhat agree") that wearable technology influences decision making. Current use of wearable technology showed a significant positive association with "perceived job relevance", while the influence of wearable technology on decision-making in training procedures was positively associated with "output quality". The future "intention to use" wearable technologies correlated positively with "perceived usefulness".
conclusionAll coaches in this study used some wearable technology to individualize training procedures. Coaches "somewhat agree" that wearables have an effect on their decision-making. For wearable technology to effectively influence coaches' decision-making during training, these technologies must provide high quality outputs and must be perceived as useful to increase future adoption. Coaches expressed a need for demonstrable results and they must perceive wearables as useful.
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.