I meet executives who show me their smartwatch data like it's a medical report. Steps, heart rate variability, sleep scores, blood oxygen. They've got more data points than some clinical trials. And almost none of it is actionable without a clinician to interpret it.
The Data Without the Context
Wearables are extraordinary data collection devices. A modern smartwatch captures continuous heart rate, movement patterns, sleep architecture, skin temperature, and blood oxygen saturation. Some are adding electrocardiogram capability and blood pressure estimation.
The technology is impressive. The interpretation is almost entirely absent.
30%
of consumer wearable users say they've changed a health behaviour based on device data, but only 7% consulted a health professional about their data
Source: Deloitte, Global Mobile Consumer Survey, 2022
Here's what happens in practice. Someone sees their heart rate variability drop. They Google it. They find twelve contradictory articles. They either panic or ignore it. Neither response is clinically appropriate.
A clinician looking at the same data point would consider it alongside blood pressure, medication, stress history, sleep patterns, recent illness, and a dozen other contextual factors. They'd know whether the change is meaningful or noise. The wearable just shows you a number.
The Wellness Industry's Favourite Trick
The wellness industry has seized on wearables as proof that health is now "democratised." Everyone has access to their own health data. The implication is that access equals understanding.
It doesn't. Access to genomic data doesn't make you a geneticist. Access to heart rate data doesn't make you a cardiologist. Data without clinical context isn't empowering - it's anxiety-inducing for some people and falsely reassuring for others.
A wearable tells you your heart rate was 52 last night. A clinician tells you whether that matters. Those are completely different services.
Jay Harrison
Health Technology Advisory
What Would Actually Work
Wearables become genuinely useful when they're connected to clinical interpretation. When continuous data feeds into a platform that a health professional monitors. When anomalies trigger clinical review, not just a notification on your wrist. When longitudinal trends are assessed by someone who understands what they mean.
That's the model we should be building. Not "wearable as wellness" but "wearable as clinical data source." The device collects. The clinician interprets. The patient benefits from the combination.
Until wearable data is routinely integrated into clinical workflows, it's a fitness tracker with medical pretensions. Useful for motivation. Dangerous if you mistake it for medical advice.