Your Doctor Doesn't Need Your Fitness Tracker Data Files IPO Prospectus

Some patients use fitness trackers to monitor their health data, but doctors say that not all of this data is clinically applicable. While you might assume that smartwatches and fitness trackers can closely monitor your health, physicians remain skeptical about the reliability of such data.

According to IDC’s Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Device Tracker, global shipments of wearable devices are projected to reach 76.1 million units in 2015, representing a year-on-year increase of 163.6% from 28.9 million units in 2014. Shipments are expected to reach 173.4 million units by 2019, with a five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 22.9%. Wearable devices primarily encompass two distinctly different product categories: basic devices and smart wearables.

“Smart wearables account for only about one-third of the market share, while the remainder is comprised of basic devices,” said Jitesh Ubrani, Senior Research Analyst for IDC’s Mobile Device Trackers. “With continuous updates to user interfaces (UI) and functionality, the market share of smart wearables is expected to surpass that of lower-priced, less-feature-rich basic devices in 2018. Smart wearable devices will soon evolve from being smartphone accessories into more advanced, standalone wearable mobile computers capable of greater processing power.”

Currently, the wearable smart devices driving the market and capturing attention are smart wristbands, including watches and bands, all capable of running third-party applications. Major products on the market include the Apple Watch, Motorola’s Moto 360, Samsung’s Gear S series, and Pebble’s Time product. “The current market landscape is characterized by a continuous influx of manufacturers entering this space, thereby creating greater segmentation and more choices,” said Ramon Llamas, Research Manager for Wearable Devices. “As existing products evolve into their second and third generations, featuring upgraded hardware and applications, potential customers will compare which wearable devices offer greater appeal. In this way, word-of-mouth and user adoption will drive the market.”


Nevertheless, some doctors and researchers remain unconvinced, questioning the value of data tracking by these devices and the validity of the data streams generated by these tools.

“I am an oncologist, and I have many patients who engage in ‘self-quantification,’” said Andrew Trister, an oncologist at the non-profit medical research organization Sage Bionetworks. “These patients present me with massive spreadsheets filled with self-tracked data, and I am unsure how to process this information.” Trister noted that his colleagues are also surprised when patients bring in data collected from their wearable devices for clinical consultations. He explained that it is often difficult to interpret the trends reflected in this information within a clinical context. Neil Sehgal, a Doctor of Public Health and senior research scientist at the University of California, San Francisco’s Center for Digital Health Innovation, concurred with this view, stating, “The number of steps you take each day is not particularly useful for clinicians’ diagnoses.”

Sehgal and his colleagues at the Digital Health Innovation Center compared data generated by wearable devices with data from clinical guidelines across multiple related studies over the past two years. They found that the reliability of data produced by currently available wearable devices rarely matches that of medical-grade devices. Moreover, consumer wearables such as Fitbit have not yet undergone FDA clinical validation for reliability, which applies the same standards used for regulating medical devices. Currently, consumer-grade wearable devices fall under the FDA’s less stringent “general wellness” category.

Trister stated that the most promising application for wearable devices currently lies in addressing specific conditions, rather than general health tracking. He cited Empatica’s Embrace wristband as an example; this device measures electrodermal activity, with rising conductivity levels indicating stress, and is used for seizure detection. Meanwhile, Sehgal pointed out that similar devices measuring skin conductance in research laboratories are employed to help assess the severity of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in soldiers returning from war zones.

However, despite the potential of sensor-embedded wearable devices, their reliability must be validated before physicians deem them clinically useful. Sehgal acknowledges that devices such as the Apple Watch or Polar heart rate monitors are beneficial insofar as they encourage increased physical activity. Nevertheless, he states, “Is it feasible to enable patients with chronic diseases to use these devices for self-management? I believe it is still premature.”

Appendix:
Different wristband operating systems need to be compatible with different smartphone operating systems, and even specific models. In addition, user experience and available applications will also create differentiation. Just like the competition between different smart wristband models, there will also be a lot of competition among operating systems.

Key Points of the Smart Wristband Operating System:
1. watchOS: Projections indicate that this operating system will rapidly establish its leadership position in the smart wristband market within its first year. IDC predicts that the second and third generations of the Apple Watch will lead overall market shipments, particularly among consumers who have been adopting a wait-and-see approach. However, it will gradually face encroachment from other competitors, with Android Wear expected to capture a more significant market share.

2. Android Wear is poised to experience exponential market growth. In the coming years, consumer electronics giants and watch manufacturers will jointly launch their own smartwatches. A major factor accelerating the development of Android Wear is its broad price range, which has attracted a larger consumer base.

3. Pebble, one of the pioneers in the smart wristband market, has seen its market share gradually decline despite increasing sales. Its ability to maintain sales growth in the face of competition from watchOS and Android Wear can be attributed to its low price, compatibility with smartphones running both Android and iOS operating systems, and a devoted fan base that has sustained its presence.

4. Tizen is currently a dark horse in the operating system market. By open-sourcing the Tizen SDK and making the Gear S2 and its accessories compatible with smartphones produced by other Android OEMs, Samsung has opened up new market opportunities. Nevertheless, as a small niche player in the current market, Tizen needs to attract the attention of consumers who are currently on the sidelines regarding smartwatches for other Android smartphones.

5. Linux entered the smartwatch market in 2014, but few companies were willing to adopt this operating system. IDC believes that without any foreseeable additional support, OEMs will favor other operating systems.

6. There is also a niche operating system with a significant market presence: the Real-Time Operating System (RTOS). It can run third-party applications but does not fall into any of the aforementioned categories. These are often proprietary operating systems that OEMs employ to differentiate their devices. While they serve specific markets or devices, they do not surpass the majority of systems in the broader market.

Shipments, Market Share, and Five-Year CAGR of the Top Five Smartwatch Operating Systems
(Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Device Tracker, September 14, 2015)

Compiled by: Li Ying

Responsible Editor: Zhang Nan