MAHA pushes wearables: Could a Fitbit replace your guidance?
Industry Buzz
"Having data without the proper interpretation can be misleading and potentially dangerous if patients attempt to interpret the data without seeking appropriate care." — Jefferey Chester, DO, physician
Under the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) initiative, US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to create an HHS-led campaign aiming for universal use of wearable devices—specifically those measuring heart rate or blood glucose—within 4 years. []
The campaign, which was announced on June 24, 2025, promotes wearables as low-cost tools (approximately $80) to foster personal health responsibility and reduce chronic disease, contrasting them with more expensive pharmaceutical interventions.
Related: 4 risky 'cures' making a comeback under MAHAAre patients likely to trust a Fitbit over their doctor?
A September 2023 survey of 876 Americans reported that 91% of wearable users want to share their data with physicians. []
What's more, 82% of survey participants said wearables would help them take a more active role in their health, and 59% said they would be motivated toward healthier behaviors when their own data was incorporated into their treatment plan. However, concerns persist: 37% doubted accuracy and 41% cited data security fears.[]
Among healthcare professionals and researchers, a review of their attitudes toward patient-generated health data (PGHD) from apps and wearables identified several recurring problems. []
These issues included doubts about data accuracy and validity, difficulties integrating PGHD into existing clinical workflows and electronic health records, potential increases in workload without clear reimbursement, and ongoing concerns over privacy and security.
“Wearable technology has the potential to enhance patient care by improving self-awareness with the use of real-time monitoring. This could potentially support preventive care," Jefferey Chester, DO, tells MDLinx.
However, Dr. Chester emphasizes we need to be cautious about relying on wearable technology without having the proper clinical context. "Having data without the proper interpretation can be misleading and potentially dangerous if patients attempt to interpret the data without seeking appropriate care," he says.
Similarly, from the patient’s perspective, a 2025 systematic review including 49 studies found that patients are more likely to trust a wearable or health app if they believe it provides accurate readings, keeps their data private, and is easy enough for them to understand and use. []
Patients’ trust in digital tools correlates with trust in providers who recommend them. The review found that "trust in health providers, as an information source, optimized consumers’ willingness to share wearable data." Without clinician endorsement, patients’ confidence in devices diminishes.
In contrast, another study showed that the average person tends to over-trust machine-generated medical advice, even when it is inaccurate. []
Could patients be relying heavily on device data, sometimes to the exclusion of clinician guidance?
"Some patients might trust advice from a Fitbit or Apple Watch more than guidance from their doctor, because these devices offer access to immediate data. In some cases, patients may rely on this data even when it contradicts what their physician says," Dr. Chester says.
Evidence for wearables in clinical contexts
Apple Watch and similar devices, though not fully FDA-approved for arrhythmia diagnosis, are increasingly used by clinicians for AFib detection and adherence monitoring. []
Consumer-grade wearables are cost-effective, unobtrusive sources of continuous physiological data, widely used in large-scale studies (eg, the Robert Koch Institute’s Datenspende COVID-19 monitoring). []
The use of a mobile health (mHealth) app connected to wearables in 1,070 diabetes patients resulted in statistically significant reductions in HbA1c and glucose levels, as well as improved lifestyle behaviors. []
Wearable data could meaningfully changed a diagnosis or treatment plan, Dr. Chester says. He references one case he's heard about where a person's Apple Watch detected irregular heart rhythms.
The person saw a cardiologist for a formal evaluation, which revealed early-stage AFib. "This led to lifestyle changes and medications that may have prevented a future stroke," he says.
Another instance Dr. Chester notes: an elderly man who fell inside his home. "He was wearing his Apple Watch, which detected the fall and called for emergency assistance. He lived alone, so the fact that he got help quickly may have saved his life.”
Related: The FDA rolled out a new AI tool—but this doc’s not buying the hypePractical considerations for clinicians
“Wearables don’t replace medical expertise, but they can provide supplemental information, which can be very valuable in cases like this," Dr. Chester says.
Physicians should recommend wearables that have proven accuracy and are cleared by regulatory authorities.
Patients need clear guidance that wearable device readings are not a substitute for diagnoses. False-positives, such as transient heart-rate spikes, are common, and people should review device data with their doctors rather than act on the information in isolation.
Wearables must not become a barrier to seeking care. For patients with limited finances or digital literacy, offer alternatives to a wearable device as a means of monitoring their health.