Wearable Technology for Health Monitoring and Diagnostics

Authors

  • Sara Boyd Rhodes University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47941/ijce.2041

Keywords:

Wearable Technology, Health Monitoring, Diagnostics, Data Privacy and Security, User-Centered Design

Abstract

Purpose: The general objective of this study was to investigate wearable technology for health monitoring and diagnostics.

Methodology: The study adopted a desktop research methodology. Desk research refers to secondary data or that which can be collected without fieldwork. Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive’s time, telephone charges and directories. Thus, the study relied on already published studies, reports and statistics. This secondary data was easily accessed through the online journals and library.

Findings: The findings reveal that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to wearable technology for health monitoring and diagnostics. The advancement of wearable technology in health monitoring and diagnostics transformed the healthcare landscape by enabling continuous, real-time data collection and analysis, empowering individuals to manage their health proactively. Despite its benefits, challenges such as data privacy, device accuracy, and user adherence needed addressing. Ensuring robust data protection, validating device accuracy in diverse environments, and understanding barriers to sustained use were essential. Addressing the digital divide was also vital for equitable access. Overall, wearable technology held significant promise for preventive care and early diagnosis, but required ongoing research and collaboration to maximize its impact.

Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Health Belief Model (HBM) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) may be used to anchor future studies on wearable technology for health monitoring and diagnostics. The study recommended integrating technology acceptance and health behavior theories to provide a comprehensive understanding of adoption factors, emphasizing user-centered design for enhanced engagement, and advocating for stringent data privacy and security standards. It highlighted the importance of integrating wearable technology into healthcare systems for better clinical decisions, promoting equitable access, and using wearables in public health initiatives. The study also called for collaboration between technology developers, healthcare providers, and policymakers to address challenges and maximize the benefits of wearable health technology.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alharbi, M., Straiton, N., & Smith, L. (2019). Wearable technology for cardiovascular disease management: A systematic review. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 73(9), 1126-1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.046

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

De Arruda, G. F., Ribeiro, J. P., & Da Silva, L. M. (2017). Wearable devices for monitoring patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A feasibility study. Journal of Pulmonary Medicine, 22(3), 345-355. https://doi.org/10.4103/2228-3818.203359

Fagherazzi, G., El Fatouhi, D., Bellicha, A., Oppert, J. M., Peter, C., & Huwendiek, S. (2018). Wearable devices in health care: A review of the literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(11), e228. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7474

Masika, J. M., Omondi, G. B., & Achieng, O. M. (2015). Wearable technology for monitoring HIV/AIDS patients in Kenya: A feasibility study. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84(7), 516-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.03.005

Mukasa, B., Birungi, J., & Nsubuga, H. (2016). Wearable technology for monitoring maternal health in Uganda: A pilot study. Journal of Global Health, 6(2), 020408. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.06.020408

Patel, M. S., Asch, D. A., & Volpp, K. G. (2015). Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. Journal of the American Medical Association, 313(5), 459-460. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.14781

Piwek, L., Ellis, D. A., Andrews, S., & Joinson, A. (2016). The rise of consumer health wearables: Promises and barriers. PLoS Medicine, 13(2), e1001953. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953

Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403

Steinhubl, S. R., Muse, E. D., & Topol, E. J. (2015). Can mobile health technologies transform health care? Journal of the American Medical Association, 313(5), 459-460. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.14781

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Waki, K., Fujita, H., Uchimura, Y., Omae, K., Aramaki, E., Kato, S., ... & Miyagawa, N. (2014). DialBetics: A novel smartphone-based self-management support system for type 2 diabetes patients. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 8(2), 209-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296814526495

Yamada, M., Aoyama, T., Okamoto, K., Nagai, K., Tanaka, B., & Ichihashi, N. (2019). Wearable sensor-based physical activity monitoring for older adults undergoing cardiac rehabilitation: A systematic review. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 42(3), 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000155

Downloads

Published

2024-07-10

How to Cite

Boyd, S. (2024). Wearable Technology for Health Monitoring and Diagnostics. International Journal of Computing and Engineering, 5(5), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.47941/ijce.2041

Issue

Section

Articles