Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Currently submitted to: JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies

Date Submitted: Apr 2, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Apr 17, 2026 - Jun 12, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint

Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).

Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.

Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).

Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.

Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.

Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Wearable Technology Use in US Physical Therapy Practice: A National Cross-Sectional Survey

  • Jason Pelletier; 
  • Mariana Wingood; 
  • Cory Alcon; 
  • Aliza Nedimyer

ABSTRACT

Background:

Wearable health technologies are increasingly adopted by consumers and are emerging as tools for digital health monitoring and behavior change. However, their integration into physical therapy practice remains unclear. Understanding clinician-level adoption patterns is necessary to guide implementation and education efforts.

Objective:

To determine the prevalence, patterns, and clinician characteristics associated with wearable use in US PT practice.

Methods:

A national cross-sectional online survey was distributed to licensed physical therapists (PTs) and physical therapist assistants (PTAs) from six US state board listservs. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses examined associations with wearable use. A multivariable logistic regression model identified independent predictors of adoption. Open responses were examined for additional insights into wearable use.

Results:

Among respondents, 34.4% reported using wearables with at least one patient. Users incorporated them with 34.5% of their caseload, yielding 11.9% of all patients being exposed to wearables at some point during rehabilitative care. 6.5% are estimated to receive regular (weekly or near-every-session) integration. Wrist-worn devices and smartphones were most common types used, with heart rate, exercise minutes, and step counts as the primary data used by clinicians, with in-session monitoring and patient education as the most cited purposes. In multivariable analyses, personal wearable use (OR 0.22 for non-users, 95% CI 0.16–0.31), frequent neurologic caseload (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.27–2.06), APTA membership (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.18–1.87), and primary practice setting were independently associated with adoption. Age, years of practice, rurality, and regional income were not associated.

Conclusions:

Wearable use in US PT practice is present but selectively applied, with routine integration occurring in a small fraction of patients. Adoption appears driven by personal familiarity and professional engagement rather than demographic factors, suggesting wearable implementation in rehabilitation remains in an early diffusion phase.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Pelletier J, Wingood M, Alcon C, Nedimyer A

Wearable Technology Use in US Physical Therapy Practice: A National Cross-Sectional Survey

JMIR Preprints. 02/04/2026:96988

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.96988

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/96988

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.