Key takeaways

Wearables produce vast data volumes, yet physicians often cannot apply it effectively.
Traditional episodic care models face difficulties with continuous data streams.
Some physicians see potential in tools like AI to manage the influx.

Heart specialist Dr. David Kao regularly encounters individuals arriving at visits equipped with metrics from their tracking devices.

A recent midweek session mirrored prior ones when a patient presented figures from her fitness tracker that raised concerns.

"Around 70 percent of the information lacks clear clinical application, as it stems from company algorithms," noted Kao, an associate professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. "Yet two elements stood out as highly valuable, details we would have missed without the device."

Such interactions have unfolded nationwide over ten years as both parties grapple with the surge of numbers from tracking tech.

"It delivers an overwhelming stream of varied details," Kao explained. "Often research is needed just to grasp how to respond, and no digital tool exists to condense or assist clinicians with interpreting any of it."

Over 30 percent of American adults now use fitness or wellness trackers, per Statista data. Device growth has expanded the range of personal metrics captured, including heart rate, blood pressure, rest cycles, tension levels, oxygen saturation, and beyond. People have become more measured than at any prior point.

Although trackers promote ideas of data-driven wellness and optimization, the practical experience proves intricate for users and medical staff seeking to interpret and apply the outputs.

Continuous monitoring challenges

Absent a long-term condition or yearly exam, most see physicians only after an issue arises.

With ongoing device data available, the standard visit-based system lacks structure for handling persistent information flows.

"Physicians may recognize the value, but their setups, support systems, and available resources such as time and personnel are not equipped to accept and leverage such inputs," stated Ream Shoreibah, a teaching associate professor of marketing at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Shoreibah contributed to a team that issued a study in The Journal of Consumer Affairs on hurdles linking individuals, their metrics, and care providers.

A central concern involves incorporating tracker outputs into electronic health records.

Merging device information into records proves difficult due to multiple factors. It demands coordination between separate cloud systems from major firms. Additionally, accurate routing of wearable details to the right patient file must be ensured, according to Dr. Ida Sim, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who also works in computational precision health there and at UC Berkeley. She co-directs a joint program in that field.

"The entire process remains unregulated," she remarked.

Even with seamless transfer possible, Sim noted that providers juggle numerous accounts and access points for various company platforms, where displays may differ in format.

Rules stay unclear, leaving providers to determine what information to retain and duration of storage.

Is a five-minute heart rate log from the past quarter needed, or should it persist indefinitely?

Sim added that certain devices employ terms like recovery scores or strain indexes that lack direct clinical equivalents. Some physicians doubt the reliability of these figures altogether.

Shoreibah's group addressed this in their work. "Validity questions pose a professional bind: ignoring device data may discourage involved patients, whereas responding to unverified readings could cause medical issues," the report stated.

Approvals such as FDA clearance or independent verification, plus more openness from device firms, might increase confidence in the numbers for both sides.

"Inputs and calculations stay hidden, leaving only a label, figure, and description that appears technical yet may lack substance," Sim said.

Addressing the data surge

Dr. Kenneth Civello, a heart rhythm expert at Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, recalls the 2009 Fitbit launch when patients began sharing readings. He particularly remembers gaining novel perspectives early on.

An older patient arrived with all details on her tablet. At higher risk for irregular heartbeat, she expressed worry.

"The pattern matched signs of atrial fibrillation," he recalled. "That moment shifted my perspective toward these devices."

Civello described an initial mixed reception to new data sources. He views himself as both supporter and skeptic, yet the information influenced his outlook on future possibilities. For instance, wrist-based monitoring could ease blood pressure tracking without requiring deliberate pauses or risking forgetfulness.

Trackers have indeed prevented crises. Users have attributed alerts from devices like the Apple Watch to detecting dangerous rhythm issues and similar events.

Specialized medical trackers, including glucose monitors, already feed into records. Remote oversight in areas like cardiology represents an established practice. Even without devices, patients share information. Sim mentioned receiving blood pressure logs on decorated sheets or even napkins.

Despite the disarray, physicians like Civello remain positive. Device companies pursue steps to reduce barriers. In 2025, Samsung acquired Xealth, a care coordination service that connects with Epic, the leading records provider. Civello anticipates this will simplify moving Samsung device data into patient files.

Should the records integration improve, Civello believes AI systems could aid in processing the "data flood" and support tailored treatment.

"Personalization will arise from language models familiar with individual health details, combining them into summaries that assist physicians as the final decision-makers," he said, while noting that rules for medical content in such models require further development. HIPAA does not cover chat interfaces or consumer gadgets.

Positive developments include work at the University of Colorado on addressing these issues, per Kao.

The aim involves "linking the main electronic health record with analytical support or features that handle external device data, process or interpret it in agreed useful ways, and return actionable elements to the record for provider response," he explained.

Sim contributes to JupyterHealth, an open platform designed to tackle data intake without relying solely on large corporate systems.

"Health serves the public and should not be treated as a commercial venture alone. It represents a shared benefit, requiring public systems," Sim stated.

Broader recommendations are emerging. The American Academy of Neurology issued advice in March for specialists regarding device use.

"Physicians manage extensive medical updates, so structured guidance helps them grasp technology basics, review constraints, and prepare for patient discussions," said Dr. Sarah M. Benish, a neurologist and primary author of the academy's piece on trackers, in a written note.

As device adoption grows, Sim hopes individuals recognize that abundant organized data, graphs, and tables do not automatically resolve health questions. Assessing and treating people differs from mechanical repairs, she noted.

For Kao, he sometimes navigates patient letdowns when their collected information cannot be applied.

"Patients, commendably, seek greater self-understanding and insight into bodily responses."