Physicians are already living with wearable data, whether or not the systems around them are ready for it.
Smartwatches, fitness trackers and biosensors owned by patients are generating a steady stream of health information, and physicians across the world are reviewing it in growing numbers. A new international survey from the American Medical Association’s Center for Digital Health and AI and Medscape set out to measure how far that review has translated into structured clinical use, and found a wide gap between physician interest and the workflows, payment mechanisms and legal clarity needed to act on the data.
The survey included 2,222 physicians in the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Spain and the U.K.
Here are eight takeaways from the report.
1. Physician interest is close to universal. Ninety-seven percent of physicians reported reviewing wearable data in some capacity, and just 3% said they’ve never reviewed any of the data types included in the survey. Eighty-two percent reported personally using a wearable device, including 72% who wear a smartwatch and 44% who use a fitness tracker.
2. Structural barriers, not motivation, are the real holdup. Despite that near-universal interest, workflow integration remains rare everywhere. No country’s physician workforce topped 6% actively incorporating wearable data into clinical workflows — the U.S. led at 6%, followed by Germany at 5% — a ceiling researchers tied to gaps in reimbursement, workflow support and clinical evidence rather than physician willingness.
3. Payment pathways alone don’t move the needle. France has established reimbursement mechanisms for digital monitoring, but reported the lowest wearable-data integration in the study and the highest concern about medical-legal liability of the six countries: 53% of French physicians rated it a serious concern. The United Kingdom sits at the opposite extreme, with high personal wearable use and frequent patient-initiated requests but no National Health Service payment pathway and the lowest feasibility scores in the survey.
4. Liability concerns cut across borders. Physicians in multiple countries pointed to legal exposure as a reason to hold back, even where they saw clinical value.
“Ultimately it’s always about liability when a physician makes a diagnosis using such a device, initiates therapy, and side effects arise,” one cardiologist in Germany wrote in survey responses included in the report.
5. Patients are a bigger lever than health systems may expect. Physicians in every country reported that when patients ask them to review wearable data, they typically do it, even though such requests are not yet routine. About one in four physicians said patients ask them to review, interpret or discuss wearable data at least weekly, and physicians who have already integrated wearable data into their workflows reported meaningfully stronger patient demand than those who haven’t.
6. Confidence, not distrust of regulators, separates the two groups of physicians. Physicians using wearable data in clinical workflows and those who aren’t rated regulatory trust and reimbursement influence almost identically, according to the survey. What differs is interpretive confidence: Physicians who have integrated the data trust its accuracy more, worry less about false positives and legal liability, and are more comfortable folding a review into a routine visit.
7. Specialty matters as much as country. Cardiologists and endocrinologists reviewed wearable data far more often, and with more clinical relevance, than other physicians: 11% of cardiologists said they’ve integrated wearable data into their workflows, compared with 2% of primary care physicians and neurologists. Cardiologists also reported the data was more feasible to act on during a routine visit, while primary care physicians, neurologists and pulmonologists reported more limits on relevance, confidence and practicality.
The workflow itself, not the underlying technology, was the more common sticking point.
“We need to have this data available prior to the clinic appointment or it takes up valuable time to obtain and interpret the data during an already busy appointment time,” one neurologist in the U.S. wrote in survey responses.
8. The AMA is calling for coordinated action, not more awareness campaigns. The organization’s recommendations span physicians, policymakers, device makers and health IT vendors: clearer billing codes for in-visit review of consumer wearable data, published validation data stratified by specialty, and structured workflows that make review feasible within routine visit time rather than uncompensated extra work.
“Physicians are confident that wearable data can enhance diagnosis, disease management and patient engagement, but broader adoption depends on stronger clinical validation, clearer payment and liability frameworks, better tools for interpreting data, and workflows that fit seamlessly into clinical practice,” Willie Underwood III, MD, president of the AMA, said in a statement.
“Addressing these challenges will help unlock the full value of wearable technology as a trusted component of modern healthcare,” Dr. Underwood said.
At the Becker’s 32nd Annual Meeting: The Business and Operations of ASCs, taking place October 29-31 in Chicago, ASC leaders, surgeons and healthcare executives will explore strategies to drive growth, enhance operational performance, navigate reimbursement challenges and prepare for the future of ambulatory surgery. Apply for complimentary registration now.