To track or not to track? Employees’ data privacy in the age of corporate wellness, mobile health, and GDPR†
Abstract
... The latest digital health developments have allowed for a better tracking of individuals’ health through wearable devices and health apps, also known as ‘mobile health’ (mHealth). mHealth companies do not only target individual consumers, but also businesses, as they see a market in corporate health and wellness programs. As such, some employers now offer employees to use fitness wristbands or smartwatches so that employees can monitor their health at work and beyond. These devices and apps enable users to track their exercise, number of steps, sleep patterns, eating habits, and a myriad of other health-related activities, which are typically not connected to work. For example, the Apple Watch Series 5 offers to monitor heart rate and glucose levels, and collects, the user's health information in the user’s iPhone Health app.’1 Employers present mHealth devices and apps as company ‘perks’ for employees. However, the use of mHealth devices may come at a price for employees, who may share their most personal information, namely their health information, with their employer and third parties, such as mHealth developers, and/or insurance companies. For example, an employee may share unwillingly or unknowingly information with his/her employer about his/her diabetes condition, heart disease, or insomnia. Sharing this information with the employer not only affects the employee’s right to privacy and data protection, but also his/her right to non-discrimination, as the employer…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Employers could access data reflecting negatively on candidates' health or productivity, influencing hiring decisions.
“Employers could access data reflecting negatively on candidates' health or productivity, influencing hiring decisions 28 .”
From Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ebert, I., Wildhaber, I., & Adams-Prassl, J. (2021) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517211013051 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Doherty, C., Baldwin, M., Lambe, R., Altini, M., & Caulfield, B. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01757-1 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
- Authors
- Brassart Olsen, C.
- Venue
- International Data Privacy Law
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-04-27
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 236-252
- ISSN
- 2044-3994
- 2044-4001
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review