Cross-sectional survey evaluates vascular specialists' perceptions of wearable device applications and barriers.
BACKGROUND: Wearable technologies have emerged as powerful tools in in digital health and may improve monitoring and personalized care for patients with vascular diseases. However, their integration into routine vascular practice remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the perceptions of vascular specialists regarding the potential clinical and research applications of wearable technologies in vascular surgery. METHODS: An international, cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among healthcare professionals involved in vascular care across Europe. The questionnaire assessed participants' demographic characteristics, prior experience with wearable devices, perceived clinical and research applications, and potential barriers to implementation. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the responses. RESULTS: A total of 133 participants from 33 countries completed the survey. Most respondents were consultant vascular surgeons working in university or teaching hospitals. Overall, 36.1% reported prior experience with wearable technologies, most commonly smartwatches and activity trackers. Respondents identified potential benefits in chronic disease management (80.0%), perioperative monitoring (67.9%), telemedicine (67.2%), and secondary prevention (66.4%). A large majority (90.2%) agreed that wearable devices could support postoperative monitoring after vascular interventions. The most frequently reported barriers to implementation were device cost (71.8%), data security and privacy concerns (42.0% and 40.5%), time constraints (30.5%), and lack of validated devices (26.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular specialists recognize the potential of wearable technologies to enhance patient monitoring and support vascular research. Nevertheless, economic, technological, and regulatory challenges remain important barriers to their widespread implementation in vascular practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raffort et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: