Systematic review evaluates wearable technologies' effects on disease management in hemodialysis patients, suggesting potential benefits.
Background Hemodialysis is a life‐sustaining treatment for individuals with kidney failure; however, it is associated with substantial physical and psychosocial challenges that can negatively affect quality of life and self‐management. Wearable health technologies have gained increasing attention as tools for continuous monitoring of physiological and behavioral indicators, with potential relevance for disease management and psychosocial adaptation in hemodialysis care. Objectives This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact of wearable technologies on disease management and psychosocial adaptation among individuals receiving hemodialysis. Design Systematic review. Participants Adults receiving maintenance hemodialysis. Measurements A comprehensive literature search was conducted across five electronic databases. Study selection and screening were performed independently by two reviewers using a standardized review management system, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. Results Following screening and eligibility assessment, eight studies were included in the review, comprising three randomized controlled trials, two cohort studies, two cross‐sectional studies, and one quasi‐experimental study. Wearable technologies were primarily used to monitor physical activity, electrolyte imbalance, fluid status, and oxygen saturation. Across the included studies, wearable‐based applications were associated with improved monitoring capabilities and showed potential benefits for self‐management behaviors and selected psychosocial outcomes. Conclusions Wearable technologies may serve as supportive tools for monitoring disease‐related parameters and promoting self‐management among individuals receiving hemodialysis. However, the current evidence remains limited and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for further high‐quality studies to clarify their clinical and psychosocial impact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kavala et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: