Use of Wearable Device among Adults in the US with Self-reported Diabetes Mellitus: An Analysis of the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey

Victor Kekere^1, , Henry Onyeaka², Olubunmi Fatoki³, Kudirat Olatunde⁴, Somto Enemuo⁵, Chidi Asuzu⁶ and Onoriode Kesiena⁷

¹Neuroscience, University of Hartford, West Hartford, USA

²Psychiatry, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA

³Biomedical Science, Liberty University, Virginia, USA

⁴Public Health, George Washington University, DC, USA

⁵Public Health, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA

⁶Medicine, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, NGA

⁷Internal Medicine, Piedmont Athens Regional Medical Center, GA, USA

Cite this paper:
Victor Kekere, Henry Onyeaka, Olubunmi Fatoki, Kudirat Olatunde, Somto Enemuo, Chidi Asuzu and Onoriode Kesiena. Use of Wearable Device among Adults in the US with Self-reported Diabetes Mellitus: An Analysis of the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey. Journal of Physical Activity Research. 2020; 5(2):72-78. doi: 10.12691/jpar-5-2-2

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence, patterns, and sociodemographic predictors of wearable device use among individuals with self-reported diabetes mellitus. Methods: Data for our analysis was drawn from cycle 3 (2019) of the 5th edition of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5). Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the demographic characteristics, prevalence, and frequency of wearable device use among individuals with diabetes mellitus. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the sociodemographic predictors of wearable device use. Results: We identified 1149 individuals who self-reported diabetes mellitus. Of these, 51.2% were females, 59.3% were white, and 51.6% had less than a college education. The prevalence of wearable device use was 20%. Further, a sizable proportion (86.1%) of the wearable device users were willing to share information from their wearable devices with their healthcare provider, and almost half of them (43.4%) reported daily use of these devices in the past 1-month. Significant sociodemographic predictors of wearable device use include age, income, and level of education. Conclusion: Our results highlight the feasibility and acceptability of using wearable devices to deliver evidence-based health care to individuals with diabetes. Future interventions should consider the scalability of these tools and how to reach those subgroups of individuals with diabetes mellitus to whom current technologies may be unavailable.

Keywords:
wearable device diabetes mellitus weight loss physical activity tracking health behaviors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Ho PM, Rumsfeld JS, Masoudi FA, et al. Effect of medication nonadherence on hospitalization and mortality among patients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166(17): 1836-1841.
[2]	Sokol MC, McGuigan KA, Verbrugge RR, Epstein RS. Impact of medication adherence on hospitalization risk and healthcare cost. Med Care. 2005; 43(6): 521-530.
[3]	Frias J, Virdi N, Raja P, Kim Y, Savage G, Osterberg L. Effectiveness of Digital Medicines to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes: Prospective, Open-Label, Cluster-Randomized Pilot Clinical Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(7): e246.
[4]	Sharma A, Mentz RJ, Granger BB, et al. Utilizing mobile technologies to improve physical activity and medication adherence in patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus: Rationale and design of the TARGET-HF-DM Trial. Am Heart J. 2019; 211: 22-33.
[5]	Schwartz DD, Stewart SD, Aikens JE, Bussell JK, Osborn CY, Safford MM. Seeing the Person, Not the Illness: Promoting Diabetes Medication Adherence Through Patient-Centered Collaboration. Clin Diabetes. 2017; 35(1): 35-42.
[6]	Egede LE, Zheng D. Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Adults With Diabetes: Prevalence and Missed Opportunities for Physician Counseling. Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162(4): 427-433.
[7]	Why Offer a Lifestyle Change Program? Published February 14, 2020. Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/why-offer-lcp.htm.
[8]	Jarrett RJ, Shipley MJ. Mortality and associated risk factors in diabetics. European Journal of Endocrinology. 1985; 110(4_Suppl): S21-S26.
[9]	Schernthaner G. Cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in type-2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 1996; 31: S3-S13.
[10]	Kannel W B, McGee D L. Diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors: the Framingham study. Circulation. 1979; 59(1): 8-13.
[11]	Brown DS. Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Access to Care for US Adults With Diabetes, 2011-2012. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015; 12.
[12]	Saydah SH, Imperatore G, Beckles GL. Socioeconomic status and mortality: contribution of health care access and psychological distress among U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36(1): 49-55.
[13]	Nam S, Chesla C, Stotts NA, Kroon L, Janson SL. Barriers to diabetes management: patient and provider factors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011; 93(1): 1-9.
[14]	Organisation mondiale de la santé. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. WHO; 2010.
[15]	Bradway M, Giordanengo A, Joakimsen R, et al. Measuring the Effects of Sharing Mobile Health Data During Diabetes Consultations: Protocol for a Mixed Method Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020; 9(2).
[16]	Appelboom G, Camacho E, Abraham ME, et al. Smart wearable body sensors for patient self-assessment and monitoring. Archives of Public Health. 2014; 72(1): 28.
[17]	Milani RV, Bober RM, Lavie CJ. The Role of Technology in Chronic Disease Care. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2016; 58(6): 579-583.
[18]	Phillips SM, Cadmus-Bertram L, Rosenberg D, Buman MP, Lynch BM. Wearable Technology and Physical Activity in Chronic Disease: Opportunities and Challenges. Am J Prev Med. 2018; 54(1): 144-150.
[19]	Wulfovich S, Fiordelli M, Rivas H, Concepcion W, Wac K. “I Must Try Harder”: Design Implications for Mobile Apps and Wearables Contributing to Self-Efficacy of Patients With Chronic Conditions. Front Psychol. 2019; 10.
[20]	Fleming GA, Petrie JR, Bergenstal RM, Holl RW, Peters AL, Heinemann L. Diabetes Digital App Technology: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43(1): 250-260.
[21]	Arnhold M, Quade M, Kirch W. Mobile applications for diabetics: a systematic review and expert-based usability evaluation considering the special requirements of diabetes patients age 50 years or older. J Med Internet Res. 2014; 16(4): e104.
[22]	Burner E, Lam CN, DeRoss R, Kagawa-Singer M, Menchine M, Arora S. Using Mobile Health to Improve Social Support for Low-Income Latino Patients with Diabetes: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Feasibility Trial of TExT-MED + FANS. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 2017; 20(1): 39-48.
[23]	Download Data | HINTS. Accessed July 18, 2020. https://hints.cancer.gov/data/download-data.aspx.
[24]	Wise J. Activity trackers, even with cash incentives, do not improve health. BMJ. 2016; 355.
[25]	Omura JD, Carlson SA, Paul P, Watson KB, Fulton JE. National physical activity surveillance: Users of wearable activity monitors as a potential data source. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2017; 5: 124-126.
[26]	Shan R, Ding J, Plante TB, Martin SS. Mobile Health Access and Use Among Individuals With or At Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8(24).
[27]	Piwek L, Ellis DA, Andrews S, Joinson A. The Rise of Consumer Health Wearables: Promises and Barriers. PLOS Medicine. 2016; 13(2): e1001953.
[28]	Lamkin P. Smart Wearables Market To Double By 2022: $27 Billion Industry Forecast. Forbes. Accessed July 16, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2018/10/23/smart- wearables-market-to-double-by-2022-27-billion-industry-forecast/.
[29]	Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Wearable Devices as Facilitators, Not Drivers, of Health Behavior Change. JAMA. 2015; 313(5): 459-460.
[30]	Walker RK, Hickey AM, Freedson PS. Advantages and Limitations of Wearable Activity Trackers: Considerations for Patients and Clinicians. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2016; 20(6): 606-610.
[31]	Black SA. Diabetes, Diversity, and Disparity: What Do We Do With the Evidence? Am J Public Health. 2002; 92(4): 543-548.
[32]	Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991; 50(2): 248-287.
[33]	O’Leary K, Vizer L, Eschler J, Ralston J, Pratt W. Understanding patients’ health and technology attitudes for tailoring self-management interventions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015; 2015: 991-1000.
[34]	Karnoe A, Furstrand D, Christensen KB, Norgaard O, Kayser L. Assessing Competencies Needed to Engage With Digital Health Services: Development of the eHealth Literacy Assessment Toolkit. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2018; 20(5): e178.
[35]	Langford AT, Solid CA, Scott E, et al. Mobile Phone Ownership, Health Apps, and Tablet Use in US Adults With a Self-Reported History of Hypertension: Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019; 7(1): e12228.
[36]	Bove LA. Increasing Patient Engagement Through the Use of Wearable Technology. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners. 2019; 15(8): 535-539.
[37]	Levine JA. The Baetylus Theorem—the central disconnect driving consumer behavior and investment returns in Wearable Technologies. Technol Invest. 2016; 7(3): 59-65.
[38]	Efficacy of Wearable Devices to Measure and Promote Physical Activity in the Management of Diabetes. European Medical Journal. Published November 20, 2018. Accessed July 16, 2020. https://www.emjreviews.com/diabetes/article/efficacy-of- wearable-devices-to-measure-and-promote-physical-activity-in- the-management-of-diabetes/.
[39]	Wang JB, Cataldo JK, Ayala GX, et al. Mobile and Wearable Device Features that Matter in Promoting Physical Activity. J Mob Technol Med. 2016; 5(2): 2-11.
[40]	Toward research-tested mobile health interventions to prevent diabetes and cardiovascular disease among persons with pre-diabetes. Accessed May 27, 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5721672/.
[41]	Dyer O. Wearable fitness device does not help maintain weight loss, study finds. BMJ. 2016; 354.
[42]	Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Scherer EA, McHugo GJ, Marsch LA, Bartels SJ. Wearable Devices and Mobile Technologies for Supporting Behavioral Weight Loss Among People with Serious Mental Illness. Psychiatry Res. 2016; 244: 139-144.
[43]	Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Barre LK, Bartels SJ. Feasibility of Popular m-Health Technologies for Activity Tracking Among Individuals with Serious Mental Illness. Telemed J E Health. 2015; 21(3): 213-216.
[44]	Wu M, PhD, Luo J, Contributors POJ of NI. Wearable Technology Applications in Healthcare: A Literature Review. Published November 25, 2019. Accessed July 5, 2020. https://www.himss.org/resources/wearable-technology- applications-healthcare-literature-review.
[45]	Use of Consumer Wearable Devices to Promote Physical Activity: A Review of Health Intervention Studies. Accessed May 27, 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5395205/.
[46]	Kurti AN, Dallery J. Internet-based contingency management increases walking in sedentary adults. J Appl Behav Anal. 2013; 46(3): 568-581.
[47]	3 Examples of Clinicians Using Wearable Technology. Fitbit Health Solutions. Published May 29, 2018. Accessed August 26, 2020. https://healthsolutions.fitbit.com/blog/3-examples-of- clinicians-using-wearable-technology/.
[48]	Digital Doctor. Accessed August 27, 2020. https://connectedhealth.ipsos.com/digital-doctor.html.