Smartwatches and Medical Wearable Monitoring Devices

1.

Tech A: Consumer Smartwatches
Tech B: Medical-Grade Wearable
Monitoring Devices (ECG patch, CGM, etc.)
Zhasmin Askar,Daiana Issen
SMARTWATCHES AND
MEDICAL WEARABLE
MONITORING DEVICES

2.

INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
DEFINITIONS
PURPOSE
• To compare smartwatches and medical
wearable monitoring devices
• To analyze functionality, user experience (UX),
strengths/weaknesses, and sustainability
impact
• To develop evidence-based conclusions
grounded in academic research
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• Which technology is more effective in which
context?
• What levels of accuracy and reliability do they
provide?
• Where is the sustainability and social impact
greater?
MEDICAL WEARABLE
MONITORING DEVICES
SMARTWATCHES
A multifunctional
consumer wearable
device: fitness
tracking, notifications,
and selected health
indicators.
Diagnostic and
monitoring-focused
(often regulated)
devices: ECG patch,
CGM, etc.

3.

TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Smartwatches
• Sensors: PPG (heart rate),
accelerometer/gyroscope,
sometimes single-lead ECG,
SpO₂, skin temperature
• Data type: Daily activity +
wellness trends
• Ecosystem: Smartphone app
integration, push notifications
SYSTEM ILLUSTRATION
Sensors (PPG/ECG/CGM) → On-device processing
Smartphone app
Cloud/clinical
platform
Outcome: user +
physician
Medical Wearable Monitoring
• Purpose: Specific clinical indicator (e.g.,
long-term arrhythmia monitoring,
glucose monitoring)
• Measurement: ECG patch (electrical
signal), CGM (interstitial glucose)
• Outcome: Clinical report, alert,
physician referral

4.

FUNCTIONAL COMPARISON
Aspect
Tech A: Smartwatch
Tech B:Medical
Monitoring
Primary Goal
Wellness + fitness +
communication
Diagnosis/monitoring
(specific clinical goal)
Data Type
PPG HR, steps, sleep,
sometimes ECG
ECG (electrical), glucose,
SpO₂, BP, etc.
Continuity
Often episodic/limited
modes
Long continuous
monitoring (days–weeks)
Output
Data Integration
Cost/Access
Clinical
Trends, self-management,
report/diagnostic signal
alerts
Manufacturer ecosystem, Clinical platform,
physician sharing
sometimes API
Mass market, relatively
affordable
More expensive, often
prescription-based

5.

ACCURACY AND CLINICAL
EFFECTIVENESS
Key findings from academic
literature:
• Apple Heart Study: PPV ≈ 0.84 among those
receiving irregular rhythm notifications
• Smartwatch HR (Apple Watch 3): %MAE ≈
5.86 over 24 hours
• Dexcom G6 CGM: MARD ≈ 10.0% over 10 days
• 7-day ECG patch: arrhythmia detection
34.5% vs 19.0% (24h Holter)
• 14-day patch (Zio): detects additional
events compared to Holter and is preferred
by patients
Note: For HR and CGM, lower error
values indicate better accuracy.

6.

USER EXPERIENCE (UX)
TECH A (SMARTWATCH) – UX PROFILE
• Easy onboarding: intuitive interface,
notification-driven use
• Motivation: goals, rings/streaks, gamification
• Limitations: charging frequency,
measurement modes, signal quality
• Trust issues: false alerts may increase
anxiety
UX Indicators:
Usability • Clarity • Privacy trust • Long-term
adherence
TECH B (MEDICAL DEVICES) – UX PROFILE
• Clear clinical purpose: patient understands
why it is worn
• High adherence during monitoring period →
improved detection
• Possible discomfort: skin irritation, adhesive
issues
• Data pathway: physician-focused reports,
sometimes patient app
Example Preferences:
93.7% rated patch as comfortable
81% preferred patch over Holter monitor
Conclusion:
When UX is aligned with a clear clinical task,
adherence improves.

7.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Tech A — Smartwatch
Strengths
Multifunctionality: communication + fitness +
basic health metrics
Large user base and continuous
engagement
Screening potential (e.g., AF detection)
Weaknesses
Clinical-grade accuracy not guaranteed
Motion artifacts, fit issues, battery limitations
Privacy and commercial data risks
Tech B — Medical Monitoring
Strengths
Clinical protocols + validated sensors
(ECG/CGM)
Long-term monitoring improves detection
Direct relevance to physician decisionmaking
Weaknesses
Higher cost / unequal accessibility
Possible skin reactions or discomfort
Often temporary (diagnostic phase only)
Practical Heuristic:
“Screening/lifestyle” → Tech A
“Diagnosis/monitoring” → Tech B

8.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT
(ENVIRONMENTAL + SOCIAL)
Environmental
• Short product life cycle
(especially smartwatches) →
increased e-waste
• Multi-material structure
(battery, sensors, plastic/metal)
complicates recycling
• Design-for-disassembly and
modular repair improve
sustainability
Social
• Privacy: data policies vary
significantly across
manufacturers
• Equity: medical devices are
expensive → access inequality
• Higher medical data sensitivity
→ stronger cybersecurity
requirements

9.

SUITABILITY: CONTEXT-BASED
EFFECTIVENESS
Decision Matrix
Clinical
diagnosis
Screening/
self-control
Daily fitness/sleep
AF screening
Short term
Glucose management (CGM)
Long-term ECG monitoring
Long term
Correct choice depends on:
Purpose (wellness vs clinical) + Required accuracy + Monitoring
duration

10.

CONCLUSION
Key Conclusions
Comparative Judgment
• If the goal is population-scale
monitoring and behavior
change, Tech A is more effective.
• If the goal is diagnosis, risk
identification, or treatment
monitoring, Tech B (regulated
devices) is superior.
• Tech A (Smartwatch): Broad “health + lifestyle”
platform; useful for large-scale screening and
behavioral change.
• Tech B (Medical Monitoring): Narrow but
clinically validated; improves diagnostic
accuracy through long-term monitoring.
• UX: Smartwatch = engagement; Medical device
= adherence and clinical integration.
• Sustainability: Longer product lifespan,
repairability, and transparent data governance
are critical.

11.

REFERENCES
1.Perez, M. V., Mahaffey, K. W., Hedlin, H., Rumsfeld, J. S., Garcia, A., Ferris, T., ... Turakhia, M. P. (2019). Largescale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine, 381(20),
1909–1917. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1901183
2.Nelson, B. W., & Allen, N. B. (2019). Accuracy of consumer wearable heart rate measurement during an
ecologically valid 24-hour period: Intraindividual validation study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(3), e10828.
https://doi.org/10.2196/10828
3.Wadwa, R. P., Laffel, L. M., Shah, V. N., & Garg, S. K. (2018). Accuracy of a factory-calibrated, real-time
continuous glucose monitoring system during home use by adults and children with diabetes. Diabetes
Technology & Therapeutics, 20(6), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0150
4.Kim, J. Y., Lee, J., Shin, H., et al. (2023). Diagnostic accuracy of wearable devices for arrhythmia detection:
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Arrhythmia, 39(4), 620–631.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37324764/
5.Barrett, P. M., Komatireddy, R., Haaser, S., et al. (2014). Comparison of 24-hour Holter monitoring versus 14day novel adhesive patch electrocardiographic monitoring. The American Journal of Medicine, 127(1), 95.e11–
95.e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.10.003
Moore, K., Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2021). User experience and adoption of wearable health technologies among
older adults. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(4), e23832. https://doi.org/10.2196/23832
Doherty, C., Lang, M., & Stewart, J. (2025). Environmental sustainability of wearable health technologies:
Challenges and opportunities. NPJ Digital Medicine, 8, Article 112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01757-1
Sadi, M. S., Kumar, R., & Lee, J. (2025). Design-for-disassembly strategies for wearable electronics
sustainability. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 36, e01782.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2025.e01782

12.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION