Author:
- Guy Paré
- Chad Leaver
- Claire Bourget
Abstract:
Background: With the ever-increasing availability of mobile apps, consumer wearables, and smart medical devices, more and more individuals are self-tracking and managing their personal health data.
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the diffusion of the digital self-tracking movement in Canada. It provides a comprehensive, yet detailed account of this phenomenon. It examines the profile of digital self-trackers, traditional self-trackers, and nontrackers, further investigating the primary motivations for self-tracking and reasons for nontracking; barriers to adoption of connected care technologies; users’ appreciation of their self-tracking devices, including what they perceive to be the main benefits; factors that influence people’s intention to continue using connected care technologies in the future; and the reasons for usage discontinuance.
Methods: We conducted an online survey with a sample of 4109 Canadian adults, one of the largest ever. To ensure a representative sample, quota method was used (gender, age), following stratification by region. The maximum margin of error is estimated at 1.6%, 19 times out of 20.
Results: Our findings reveal that 66.20% (2720/4109) of our respondents regularly self-track one or more aspects of their health. About one in 4 respondents (1014/4109, 24.68%) currently owns a wearable or smart medical device, and 57.20% (580/1014) use their devices on a regular basis for self-tracking purposes. Digital self-trackers are typically young or mature adults, healthy, employed, university educated, with an annual family income of over $80,000 CAD. The most popular reported device is the fitness tracker or smartwatch that can capture a range of parameters. Currently, mobile apps and digital self-tracking devices are mainly used to monitor physical activity (856/1669, 51.13%), nutrition (545/1669, 32.65%), sleep patterns (482/1669, 28.88%) and, to a much lesser extent, cardiovascular and pulmonary biomarkers (215/1669, 12.88%), medication intake (126/1669, 7.55%), and glucose level (79/1669, 4.73%). Most users of connected care technologies (481/580, 83.0%) are highly satisfied and 88.2% (511/580) intend to continue using their apps and devices in the future. A majority said smart digital devices have allowed them to maintain or improve their health condition (398/580, 68.5%) and to be better informed about their health in general (387/580, 66.6%). About 33.80% of our sample (1389/4109) is composed of people who do not monitor their health or well-being on a regular basis.
Conclusions: Our study shows an opportunity to advance the health of Canadians through connected care technologies. Our findings can be used to set baseline information for future research on the rise of digital health self-tracking and its impacts. Although the use of mobile apps, consumer wearables, and smart medical devices could potentially benefit the growing population of patients with chronic conditions, the question remains as to whether it will diffuse broadly beyond early adopters and across cost inequities.
Document: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29720359/
References:
1. Topol E. The Patient Will See You Now: The Future of Medicine Is in Your Hands. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2015. [Google Scholar]
2. PwC Health Research Institute PWC. [2017-10-26]. Health wearables: early days https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/publications/health-wearables-early-days.htmlwebcite.
3. Gartner. 2017. [2017-10-27]. Gartner says 8 billion connected things will be in use in 2017, up 31 percent from 2016 https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/webcite.
4. Soreon Research. 2014. [2017-10-27]. The wearable health revolution http://www.soreonresearch.com/wearable-healthcare-report-2014/webcite.
5. Hoy MB. Personal activity trackers and the quantified self. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016;35(1):94–100. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2016.1117300. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Lupton D. The Quantified Self: A Sociology of Self-Tracking. United Kingdom: Cambridge: Polity Press; 2016. [Google Scholar]
7. Li I, Dey A, Forlizzi J. A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; April 10-15, 2010; Atlanta, GA. 2010. [Google Scholar]
8. Altschuler A, Picchi T, Nelson M, Rogers JD, Hart J, Sternfeld B. Physical activity questionnaire comprehension: lessons from cognitive interviews. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Feb;41(2):336–43. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318186b1b1. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19127192. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Archer E, Pavela G, Lavie CJ. The inadmissibility of what we eat in America and NHANES dietary data in nutrition and obesity research and the scientific formulation of national dietary guidelines. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Jul;90(7):911–26. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.04.009. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26071068. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Nijland N, van Limburg M, Ossebaard HC, Kelders SM, Eysenbach G, Seydel ER. A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e111. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1672. http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e111/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Kelders SM, Kok RN, Ossebaard HC, Van Gemert-Pijnen JE. Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(6):e152. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2104. http://www.jmir.org/2012/6/e152/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Fox S. Pew Research Center. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2013. The self-tracking data explosion http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/04/the-self-tracking-data-explosion/,webcite. [Google Scholar]
13. Accenture Consulting Accenture. 2016. [2017-10-26]. Patients want a heavy dose of digital https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-research-shows-patients-united-states-want-heavywebcite.
14. Brown B. Health Tech Insider. 2016. Aug 25, Salesforce’s 2016 connected patient report: insights into patient preferences on telemedicine, wearables and post-discharge care, 2016 http://healthtechinsider.com/2016/08/25/2016-connected-patient-report/webcite.
15. IFOP. 2015. [2017-10-27]. Objets connectes et usage des donnees: la perception des Francais http://www.ifop.fr/media/poll/3250-1-study_file.pdfwebcite.
16. Global GfK GFK. 2016. [2017-10-26]. Health and fitness tracking http://www.gfk.com/global-studies/global-studies-fitness-tracking/webcite.
17. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34. http://www.jmir.org/2004/3/e34/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Bowling A. Just one question: If one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 May;59(5):342–5. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.021204. http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15831678. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–340. [Google Scholar]
20. Bhattacherjee A. Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly. 2001;25(3):351–370. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250921. [Google Scholar]
21. Hong S, Thong JY, Tam KY. Understanding continued information technology usage behaviour: a comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet. Decis Support Syst. 2006;42(3):1819–1834. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2006.03.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Crtc.gc. 2016. Communication monitoring report http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/PolicyMonitoring/2016/cmri.htmwebcite.
23. Fox S, Duggan M. Pewinternet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life; 2013. [2013-11-20]. Health Online http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online/Summary-of-Findings.aspxwebcite. [Google Scholar]
24. Canada Health Infoway. 2016. [2018-01-27]. Connecting patients for better health https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/component/edocman/resources/3152-connecting-patients-for-better-health-2016webcite.
25. Oliver RL. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Mark Res. 1980:460–469. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150499. [Google Scholar]26. Nunnally J. Psychometric Methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978. [Google Scholar]
27. Zhao J, Freeman B, Li M. Can mobile phone apps influence people’s health behaviour change? An evidence review. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Oct 31;18(11):e287. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5692. http://www.jmir.org/2016/11/e287/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Ledger D, McCaffrey D. Blog.endeavour.partners. Cambridge, MA: Endeavour Partners; 2014. [2018-04-26]. Inside wearables: How the science of human behaviour change offers the secret to long-term engagement, Endeavour Partners: Cambridge, MA https://blog.endeavour.partners/inside-wearable-how-the-science-of-human-behavior-change-offers-the-secret-to-long-term-engagement-a15b3c7d4cf3?gi=b08cfb919c55webcite. [Google Scholar]
29. Piwek L, Ellis DA, Andrews S, Joinson A. The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers. PLoS Med. 2016 Feb;13(2):e1001953. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Kitsiou S, Paré G, Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(3):e63. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4174. http://www.jmir.org/2015/3/e63/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Ancker JS, Witteman HO, Hafeez B, Provencher T, Van de Graaf M, Wei E. You get reminded you’re a sick person: personal data tracking and patients with multiple chronic conditions. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(8):e202. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4209. http://www.jmir.org/2015/8/e202/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Leahey T, Rosen J. DietBet: a web-based program that uses social gaming and financial incentives to promote weight loss. JMIR Serious Games. 2014 Feb 07;2(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/games.2987. http://games.jmir.org/2014/1/e2/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Miller AS, Cafazzo JA, Seto E. A game plan: gamification design principles in mHealth applications for chronic disease management. Health Informatics J. 2014 Jul 1;22(2):184–193. doi: 10.1177/1460458214537511. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Wu Q, Sum K, Nathan-Roberts D. How fitness trackers facilitate health behaviour change. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; 2016; Los Angeles, CA. SAGE Publications; 2016. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1541931213601247. [Google Scholar]
35. Harris T, Kerry SM, Victor CR, Ekelund U, Woodcock A, Iliffe S, Whincup PH, Beighton C, Ussher M, Limb ES, David L, Brewin D, Adams F, Rogers A, Cook DG. A primary care nurse-delivered walking intervention in older adults: PACE (pedometer accelerometer consultation evaluation)-Lift cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2015 Feb;12(2):e1001783. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001783. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001783. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Wang JB, Cadmus-Bertram LA, Natarajan L, White MM, Madanat H, Nichols JF, Ayala GX, Pierce JP. Wearable sensor/device (Fitbit One) and SMS text-messaging prompts to increase physical activity in overweight and obese adults: a randomized controlled trial. Telemed J E Health. 2015 Oct;21(10):782–792. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0176. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. J Am Med Assoc. 2015 Feb 3;313(5):459–460. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.14781. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Kitsiou S, Paré G, Jaana M, Gerber B. Effectiveness of mHealth interventions for patients with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173160. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173160. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Harrington J, Schramm PJ, Davies CR, Lee-Chiong TL. An electrocardiogram-based analysis evaluating sleep quality in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath. 2013 Sep;17(3):1071–8. doi: 10.1007/s11325-013-0804-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Appelboom G, Camacho E, Abraham ME, Bruce SS, Dumont EL, Zacharia BE, D’Amico R, Slomian J, Reginster JY, Bruyère O, Connolly ES. Smart wearable body sensors for patient self-assessment and monitoring. Arch Public Health. 2014;72(1):28. doi: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-28. https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2049-3258-72-28. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Canada Health Infoway. 2017. [2017-11-10]. Use of Electronic Medical Records among Canadian Physicians https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/what-we-do/news-events/newsroom/2016-news-releases/6752-canadian-physicians-can-improve-patient-care-with-advanced-emr-usewebcite.
42. Canada Health Infoway. 2017. Canadians and Digital Health https://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/component/edocman/resources/reports/2815-infographic-report-on-digital-health-canadians-embracing-digital-healthwebcite.43. West DM. How mobile devices are transforming healthcare issues in technology innovation. Issues Technol Innov. 2012;18:14. http://www.insidepolitics.org/brookingsreports/mobile_health_52212.pdf. [Google Scholar]