AFib patients using wearable devices are more likely to engage in high rates of symptom monitoring and experience anxiety than non-users, a study shows.
AFib patients using wearable devices are more likely to engage in high rates of symptom monitoring and experience anxiety than non-users
Well no shit—how can non-users engage in high rates of symptom monitoring if they don’t have symptom monitors?
“Symptoms monitoring” refers to the conscious state of paying attention to your symptoms, not using devices to monitor your vitals.
There is no “symptom monitoring” device anyway. A “symptom” is something a patient reports, it’s not generally quantifiable using sensors. There’s no sensor that will measure if your chest hurts or if you feel nauseous, you have to tell your doctor that you are experiencing these things.
But having a constant personal feed of vital stats can make you pay a lot more attention to those symptoms if it turns into an exercise in paying excess attention to your body. Basically, too much information encourages hypochondria.
Elevated heart rate is a symptom, one that is quantifiable and monitorable.
“Tachycardia” is a sign. “Palpitations” or “heart racing” are symptoms. Signs are the objective things that can be measured and recorded as hard data. Symptoms are what the patient reports feeling that are not measurable. In taking a history and physical, the symptoms tell the physician what signs to look for.
Correlation or causation?
People that are more anxious about AFib might be more likely to buy a device to monitor it.
OR, are people that monitor symptoms and stress about it more likely to buy a wearable that allows them to do that?
“Oh my SPO2 is dangerously low, at 82%?”
*adjusts watch to be a bit tighter*
SPO2 back to 98%
So yeah I do monitor it moreso than without, but understanding the limits of the tech, hasn’t made me more worried. Bought one to record sleep schedule. Works very well for that.
82 is a bit below dangerous I’d say, especially if the wearer is unconscious.
If the wearer can see that value and understand it, it’s probably a hardware failure.
That was my reasoning exactly.
The sensors are decent enough for something that cost less than 50 euro, but clearly there’s room to improve.
Good contact is quite fickle if there are any obstructions or even dirt on the skin, but my experience are mostly with the fingertop or earlobe sensors which are quite sensitive due to only using a red led. Does the wrist one use another kind of tech?
Understanding the limits of the tech is key - I don’t equate the sleep tracking to the quality of the same I’d receive in a sleep lab, but I do value understanding my perception of sleep quality (i.e., totally subjective and rarely valid) vs the partially objective tracking I get from the watch.
I think I responses to the wrong comment, here’s the reply:
Yes, I agree.
Which is why I only got one after being declined from a sleep clinic for absurd reasons.
Mine uses a green light, but afaik it’s more or less the same as hospital ones. Just cheaper shit. Like how an aeroplane and a paperplane are technically both aircraft. You could study aerodynamics with paper aeroplanes, but it’s gonna be much easier if you don’t have to resort to that but can actually study the knowledge available to make reasonable choices.
the public healthcare here just plain up denied my referral from a psychiatrist. despite more than 20 years of sleep problems. if I could meet the person who made that decision, I’d have a few strongly selected words to tell them
