BACKGROUND: Wearable technology is used to monitor and motivate physical activity (PA) and provides continuous, objective PA and sleep data outside the clinical setting. We reviewed the literature to understand how wearables are integrated into prostate cancer (PC) investigations in order to identify current practices, gaps, and research opportunities.
METHODS: We conducted a literature search for articles using wearables, among PC survivors published between 2012 and 2022. We extracted study details, interventions and outcomes, participant baseline characteristics, and device characteristics and grouped them by study type: randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies.
RESULTS: Of 354 articles screened, 44 met eligibility criteria (23 RCTs, and 21 non-randomized). 89% used wearables to monitor PA metrics, 11%, sleep metrics, and 6.8%, both. Most studies involved exercise (70% RCTs, 9% non-randomized studies) or lifestyle interventions (30% RCTs, 9% non-randomized studies). Intervention delivery methods included personalized computer-based (48%), in-person (e.g., trainer) (20%), and education web or print-based (20%). Interventions occurred at the participant\'s home (48%) or at a gym (20%). 57% of the studies evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of the wearable as an activity-measuring device or as part of a remotely delivered computer-based intervention. Studies used wearables to monitor adherence to PA interventions, motivate behavior change, to assess patient outcomes (e.g., patient function, quality of life, mood), or as data collection tools.
CONCLUSIONS: Wearables are primarily being used to assess daily activity and monitor adherence to exercise interventions in clinical studies involving PC survivors. Findings suggest that they are feasible for use in this population. More research is needed to understand how to integrate wearables into routine clinical care, expand their use to predict clinical outcomes, or to deliver tailored interventions for PC survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Wearable activity monitors are promising tools for improving metabolic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, no uniform conclusive evidence is available. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the intervention using wearable activity monitors on blood glucose, blood pressure, blood lipid, weight, waist circumference, and body mass index (BMI) in individuals with T2DM.
METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched 4 online databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase) to identify relevant studies published from January 2000 to October 2022. The primary outcome indicator was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and the secondary outcome indicators included physical activity (steps per day), fasting blood glucose, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, BMI, waist circumference, and weight.
RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included. The HbA1c level (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.27 to -0.02; P = .02; I2 = 48%), BMI (SMD, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.05; P = .002; I2 = 0), waist circumference (SMD, -0.21; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.09; P < .001; I2 = 0), and steps/day (SMD, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.94; P < .001; I2 = 77%) significantly improved.
CONCLUSIONS: Wearable activity monitor-based interventions could facilitate the improvement of the HbA1c level, BMI, and waist circumference and increase in physical activity in individuals with T2DM. Wearable technology appeared to be an effective tool for the self-management of T2DM; however, there is insufficient evidence about its long-term effect.

UNASSIGNED: Physical activity (PA) plays an important role in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), functioning as a marker of disease progression and response to therapy. Real-world measurement of habitual PA is now possible through wearable activity monitors, however, their use in cardiovascular patients is not well described.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a systematic review to summarize how wearable activity monitors have been used to measure PA in patients with CVD, with 11 464 patients included across 108 studies. Activity monitors were primarily used in the setting of cardiac rehabilitation (46, 43%). Most often, triaxial accelerometers (70, 65%) were instructed to be worn at the hip (58, 54%) for 7 days (n = 54, 50%). Thirty-nine different activity monitors were used, with a range of accelerometer specific settings for collection and reporting of activity data. Activity was reported most commonly as time spent in metabolic equivalent-defined activity levels (49, 45%), while non-wear time was defined in just 16 (15%) studies.
UNASSIGNED: The collecting, processing, and reporting of accelerometer-related outcomes were highly heterogeneous. Most validation studies are limited to healthy young adults, while the paucity of methodological information disclosed renders interpretation of results and cross-study comparison challenging. While accelerometers are promising tools to measure real-world PA, we highlight current challenges facing their use in elderly multimorbid cardiology patients. We suggest recommendations to guide investigators using these devices in cardiovascular research. Future work is required to determine optimal methodology and consensus-based development of meaningful outcomes using raw acceleration data.

The use of wearable sensors to track activity is increasing. Therefore, a survey among AO Trauma members was conducted to provide an overview of their current utilization and determine future needs and directions. A cross sectional expert opinion survey was administered to members of AO Trauma. Respondents were surveyed concerning their experience, subspeciality, current use characteristics, as well as future needs concerning wearable technology. Three hundred and thirty-three survey sets were available for analysis (Response Rate 16.2%). 20.7% of respondents already use wearable technology as part of their clinical treatment. The most prevalent technology was accelerometry combined with smartphones (75.4%) to measure general patient activity. To facilitate the use of wearable technology in the future, the most pressing issues were cost, patient compliance and validity of results. Wearable activity monitors are currently being used in trauma surgery. Surgeons employing these technologies mostly measure simple activity or activity associated parameters. Cost was the greatest perceived barrier to implementation. Further research, especially concerning the interpretation of the outcome values obtained, is required to facilitate wearable activity monitoring as an objective patient outcome measurement tool.

UNASSIGNED: The present review aimed to explore the range and characteristics of interventions that utilize WAM and descriptively summarize the efficacy of these interventions.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 65 articles (61 studies) were included in this review. Most of the WAM-based interventions (n=58) were designed to improve physical activity (PA). Interventions targeting sedentary behavior (SB) were much less common (n=12), and even less frequent were WAM-based sleep interventions (n=3). Most studies tested the feasibility of WAM-based interventions; hence, efficacy of these interventions in improving PA, SB, and/or sleep could not be conclusively determined. Nonetheless, WAM-based interventions showed considerable potential in increasing PA and decreasing SB.
UNASSIGNED: WAM-based PA interventions exhibited preliminary efficacy in increasing PA. Although not as many interventions were focused on SB, current interventions also showed potential in decreasing sedentary time. Meanwhile, more evidence is needed to determine the utility of WAM in improving sleep. Major challenges with including WAM as part of interventions are reduced engagement in using the devices over time and the rapid changes in technology resulting in devices becoming obsolete soon after completion of an efficacy trial.