Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The association between electronic wearable devices and self-efficacy for managing health: a cross sectional study using 2019 HINTS data

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to investigate the association between electronic wearable devices (EWDs) and self-efficacy for managing health among U.S. adults. We extracted data from 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 3. Weighted frequencies and prevalence were calculated following the survey’s analytic guideline. A SURVEYFREQ procedure and Wald Chi-square test were performed for bivariate analysis, multivariable ordered logit models were used to estimate the association between EWDs utilization and self-efficacy for managing health in both general population and groups with chronic diseases. 4,037 respondents that represent 196,025,494 US adults aged 18 or older were included in the final sample of this study. 26.2% respondents (n = 970, weighted 51,385,138) used EWDs in the past month. 34.1% EWDs users and 23.5% non-users had “completely confident” in managing health (P < .001). In general population, Individuals used EWDs in the past month were more likely to be completely confident in managing their health (Adjusted OR, 1.48, 95%CI, 1.23–1.77) than those who did not use EWDs. The association with high self-efficacy for managing health remained among people with chronic conditions as well (Adjusted OR, 1.40, 95%CI, 1.05–1.86). In conclusion, about one fourth of American adults used EWDs in the past month and the utilization patters varied across subpopulations. Using EWDs is associated with high self-efficacy for managing health in the general population. This association remained significant among people with chronic conditions. Future studies are needed to further understand the underlying mechanism of EWDs use and self-efficacy for managing health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is available to public from website: https://hints.cancer.gov/data/default.aspx

Code availability

All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute,Cary, NC). Codes will be sent based upon the individual request.

References

  1. International Data Corporation. Wearable device market share. https://www.idc.com/promo/wearablevendor. Accessed March 28, 2020.

  2. Marston HR, Hadley R, Banks D, Duro MD. Mobile self-monitoring ECG devices to diagnose arrhythmia that coincide with palpitations: A scoping review. InHealthcare 2019 Sep (Vol. 7, No. 3, p. 96). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.

  3. Lu L, Zhang J, Xie Y, Gao F, Xu S, Wu X, Ye Z. Wearable Health Devices in Health Care: Narrative Systematic Review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2020;8(11):e18907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Guk K, Han G, Lim J, Jeong K, Kang T, Lim EK, Jung J. Evolution of wearable devices with real-time disease monitoring for personalized healthcare. Nanomaterials. 2019;9(6):813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jakicic JM, Davis KK, Rogers RJ, King WC, Marcus MD, Helsel D, Rickman AD, Wahed AS, Belle SH. Effect of wearable technology combined with a lifestyle intervention on long-term weight loss: the IDEA randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(11):1161–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rozanski GM, Aqui A, Sivakumaran S, Mansfield A. Consumer wearable devices for activity monitoring among individuals after a stroke: a prospective comparison. JMIR Cardio. 2018;2(1):e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Qiu S, Cai X, Wang X, He C, Zügel M, Steinacker JM, Schumann U. Using step counters to promote physical activity and exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis. Ther Advances Respiratory Dis. 2018;7(12):1753466618787386.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. JAMA. 2015;313(5):459–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bandura A. The evolution of social cognitive theory. Great minds in management. 2005:9–35.

  10. Bandura A. Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Aust J Manag. 1988;13(2):275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwarzer, R., Luszczynska, A. Self-efficacy health behavior constructs: theory, measurement, and research. http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/constructs. Accessed March 28, 2020.

  12. Linde JA, Rothman AJ, Baldwin AS, Jeffery RW. The impact of self-efficacy on behavior change and weight change among overweight participants in a weight loss trial. Health Psychol. 2006;25(3):282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gu MO, Yu JS, Kweon IK, Kim HW, Lee EO. A review of research on self efficacy theory applied to health related behavior. The Journal of Nurses Academic Society. 1994;24(2):278–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Strecher VJ, McEvoy DeVellis B, Becker MH, Rosenstock IM. The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Educ Q. 1986;13(1):73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. O’Leary A. Self-efficacy and health: Behavioral and stress-physiological mediation. Cognitive Ther Res. 1992;16(2):229–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rgn AH, Rgn HE. Role of self-efficacy and behavior change. Int J Nurs Pract. 2002;8(2):106–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Simons-Morton B, McLeroy K, Wendel M. Behavior theory in health promotion practice and research. Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2011 Sep 16.

  18. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. HINTS. HINTS 5, Cycle 3 (2019) Methodology Report. https://hints.cancer.gov/data/methodology-reports.aspx. Accessed March 28, 2020.

  20. Bender R, Grouven U. Ordinal logistic regression in medical research. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1997;31(5):546.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Omura JD, Carlson SA, Paul P, Watson KB, Fulton JE. National physical activity surveillance: Users of wearable activity monitors as a potential data source. Prev Med Rep. 2017;1(5):124–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vogels EA. Pew Research Center: About one-in-five Americans use a smart watch or fitness tracker. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/09/about-one-in-five-americans-use-a-smart-watch-or-fitness-tracker/. Accessed December 20, 2020.

  23. Bandura A, Freeman WH. Lightsey R. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control; 1999. p. 158–66.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bandura A. Self-efficacy Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. 1994;4:71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Coughlin SS, Stewart J. Use of consumer wearable devices to promote physical activity: a review of health intervention studies. Journal of environment and health sciences. 2016 Nov;2(6).

  26. Park S, Jayaraman S. Enhancing the quality of life through wearable technology. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2003;22(3):41–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zheng J, Shen Y, Zhang Z, Wu T, Zhang G, Lu H. Emerging wearable medical devices towards personalized healthcare. InProceedings of the 8th international conference on body area networks 2013 Sep 30 (pp. 427–431).

  28. Xie Z, Jo A, Hong YR. Electronic wearable device and physical activity among US adults: An analysis of 2019 HINTS data. Int J Med Informatics. 2020;7:104297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jo A, Coronel BD, Coakes CE, Mainous AG III. Is there a benefit to patients using wearable devices such as Fitbit or Health Apps on Mobiles? A systematic review. Am J Med. 2019;132(12):1394–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kamei T, Kanamori T, Yamamoto Y, Edirippulige S. The use of wearable devices in chronic disease management to enhance adherence and improve telehealth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2020 Aug 20:1357633X20937573.

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Allet L, Knols RH, Shirato K, Bruin ED. Wearable systems for monitoring mobility-related activities in chronic disease: a systematic review. Sensors. 2010;10(10):9026–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Adams SA, Matthews CE, Ebbeling CB, Moore CG, Cunningham JE, Fulton J, Hebert JR. The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(4):389–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Zhigang Xie, Sandhya Yadav & Ara Jo

Authors
  1. Zhigang Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandhya Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ara Jo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study conception and design: Xie, Jo; Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Xie, Jo, Yadav; Drafting of manuscript: Xie; Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Xie, Jo, Yadav; Statistical analysis: Xie; Administrative, technical, or material support: Xie,Yadav; Study supervision: Jo.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhigang Xie.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. This study was deemed exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xie, Z., Yadav, S. & Jo, A. The association between electronic wearable devices and self-efficacy for managing health: a cross sectional study using 2019 HINTS data. Health Technol. 11, 331–339 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-021-00525-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-021-00525-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation