Breaking down the Digital Fortress: The Unseen Challenges in Healthcare Technology—Lessons Learned from 10 Years of Research
Abstract
Healthcare is undergoing a fundamental shift in which digital health tools are becoming ubiquitous, with the promise of improved outcomes, reduced costs, and greater efficiency. Healthcare professionals, patients, and the wider public are faced with a paradox of choice regarding technologies across multiple domains. Research is continuing to look for methods and tools to further revolutionise all aspects of health from prediction, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. However, despite its promise, the reality of implementing digital health tools in practice, and the scalability of innovations, remains stunted. Digital health is approaching a crossroads where we need to shift our focus away from simply looking at developing new innovations to seriously considering how we overcome the barriers that currently limit its impact. This paper summarises over 10 years of digital health experiences from a group of researchers with backgrounds in physical therapy—in order to highlight and discuss some of these key lessons—in the areas of validity, patient and public involvement, privacy, reimbursement, and interoperability. Practical learnings from this collective experience across patient cohorts are leveraged to propose a list of recommendations to enable researchers to bridge the gap between the development and implementation of digital health tools.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Once accepted, agreements often grant manufacturers broad discretion to share data with third parties or store it in jurisdictions with weaker privacy protections.
“Once accepted, these agreements often grant manufacturers broad discretion to share data with third parties or store it in jurisdictions with weaker privacy protections 33,56 .”
From Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers (2025) · cites this paper as [56]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Peake, J. M., Kerr, G., & Sullivan, J. P. (2018) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.00743 · Cited by 523 · see citing works
Eruchalu, C. N., Pichardo, M. S., Bharadwaj, M., Rodriguez, C. B., Rodriguez, J. A., Bergmark, R. W., Bates, D. W., & Ortega, G. (2021) · Journal of Urban Health · doi:10.1007/s11524-020-00508-9 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Palacholla, R. S., Fischer, N., Coleman, A., Agboola, S., Kirley, K., Felsted, J., Katz, C., Lloyd, S., & Jethwani, K. (2019) · JMIR Cardio · doi:10.2196/11951 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 56
- Abernethy, A.; Adams, L.; Barrett, M.; Bechtel, C.; Brennan, P.; Butte, A.; Faulkner, J.; Fontaine, E.; Friedhoff, S.; Halamka, J.; et al. The Promise of Digital Health: Then, Now, and the Future. Natl. Acad. Med. Perspect. 2022. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
- Lupton, D. The digitally engaged patient: Self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Soc. Theory Health 2013, 11, 256-270. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Caulfield, B.M.; Donnelly, S.C. What is Connected Health and why will it change your practice? QJM 2013, 106, 703-707. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Tresp, V.; Overhage, J.M.; Bundschus, M.; Rabizadeh, S.; Fasching, P.A.; Yu, S. Going Digital: A Survey on Digitalization and Large-Scale Data Analytics in Healthcare. Proc. IEEE 2016, 104, 2180-2206. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Patel, M.S.; Asch, D.A.; Volpp, K.G. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. JAMA 2015, 313, 459-460. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
- McKay, F.H.; Wright, A.; Shill, J.; Stephens, H.; Uccellini, M. Using Health and Well-Being Apps for Behavior Change: A Systematic Search and Rating of Apps. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2019, 7, e11926. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Schlieter, H.; A Marsch, L.; Whitehouse, D.; Otto, L.; Londral, A.R.; Teepe, G.W.; Benedict, M.; Ollier, J.; Ulmer, T.; Gasser, N.; et al. Scale-up of Digital Innovations in Health Care: Expert Commentary on Enablers and Barriers. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022, 24, e24582. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Cripps, M.; Scarbrough, H. Making Digital Health "Solutions" Sustainable in Healthcare Systems: A Practitioner Perspective. Front. Digit. Health 2022, 4, 727421. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Keadle, S.K.; Lyden, K.A.; Strath, S.J.; Staudenmayer, J.W.; Freedson, P.S. A Framework to Evaluate Devices That Assess Physical Behavior. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2019, 47, 206-214. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Ash, G.; Stults-Kolehmainen, M.; Busa, M.A.; Gregory, R.; Garber, C.E.; Liu, J.; Gerstein, M.; Casajus, J.A.; Gonzalez-Aguero, A.; Constantinou, D.; et al. Establishing a Global Standard for Wearable Devices in Sport and Fitness: Perspectives from the New England Chapter of the American College of Sports Medicine Members. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2020, 19, 45-49. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Argent, R.; Bevilacqua, A.; Keogh, A.; Daly, A.; Caulfield, B. The Importance of Real-World Validation of Machine Learning Systems in Wearable Exercise Biofeedback Platforms: A Case Study. Sensors 2021, 21, 2346. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Argent, R.; Drummond, S.; Remus, A.; O'Reilly, M.; Caulfield, B. Evaluating the use of machine learning in the assessment of joint angle using a single inertial sensor. J. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. Eng. 2019, 6, 2055668319868544. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Argent, R.; Slevin, P.; Bevilacqua, A.; Neligan, M.; Daly, A.; Caulfield, B. Wearable Sensor-Based Exercise Biofeedback for Orthopaedic Rehabilitation: A Mixed Methods User Evaluation of a Prototype System. Sensors 2019, 19, 432. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Johnston, W.; O'Reilly, M.; Dolan, K.; Reid, N.; Coughlan, G.; Caulfield, C. Objective classification of dynamic balance using a single wearable sensor. In Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support, Porto, Portugal, 7-9 November 2016; pp. 15-24.
- Johnston, W.; Judice, P.B.; García, P.M.; Mühlen, J.M.; Skovgaard, E.L.; Stang, J.; Schumann, M.; Cheng, S.; Bloch, W.; Brønd, J.C.; et al. Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearable and smartphone step count: Expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE network. Br. J. Sports Med. 2021, 55, 780-793. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Johnston, W.; Keogh, A.; Dickson, J.; Leslie, S.J.; Megyesi, P.; Connolly, R.; Burke, D.; Caulfield, B. Human-Centered Design of a Digital Health Tool to Promote Effective Self-care in Patients With Heart Failure: Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Form. Res. 2022, 6, e34257. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Johnston, W.; O'Reilly, M.; Coughlan, G.F.; Caulfield, B. Inertial Sensor Technology Can Capture Changes in Dynamic Balance Control during the Y Balance Test. Digit. Biomark. 2017, 1, 106-117. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Johnston, W.; Patterson, M.; O'Mahony, N.; Caulfield, B. Validation and comparison of shank and lumbar-worn IMUs for step time estimation. Biomed. Eng. Biomed. Tech. 2017, 62, 537-545. [CrossRef] · DOI
- O'Reilly, M.A.; Whelan, D.F.; Ward, T.E.; Delahunt, E.; Caulfield, B. Classification of lunge biomechanics with multiple and individual inertial measurement units. Sports Biomech. 2017, 16, 342-360. [CrossRef] · DOI
- O'Reilly, M.A.; Whelan, D.F.; Ward, T.E.; Delahunt, E.; Caulfield, B.M. Classification of deadlift biomechanics with wearable inertial measurement units. J. Biomech. 2017, 58, 155-161. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Whelan, D.F.; O'Reilly, M.A.; Ward, T.E.; Delahunt, E.; Caulfield, B. Technology in Rehabilitation: Evaluating the Single Leg Squat Exercise with Wearable Inertial Measurement Units. Methods Inf. Med. 2017, 56, 88-94. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Mico-Amigo, M.E.; Bonci, T.; Paraschiv-Ionescu, A.; Ullrich, M.; Kirk, C.; Soltani, A.; Küderle, A.; Gazit, E.; Salis, F.; Alcock, L.; et al. Assessing real-world gait with digital technology? Validation, insights and recommendations from the Mobilise-D consortium. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2023, 20, 78. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Rochester, L.; Mazzà, C.; Mueller, A.; Caulfield, B.; McCarthy, M.; Becker, C.; Miller, R.; Piraino, P.; Viceconti, M.; Dartee, W.P.; et al. A roadmap to inform development, validation and approval of digital mobility outcomes: The Mobilise-D approach. Digit. Biomark. 2020, 4, 13-27. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Doherty, C.; Baldwin, M.; Keogh, A.; Caulfield, B.; Argent, R. Keeping Pace with Wearables: A Living Systematic Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Evaluating the Accuracy of Commercial Wearable Technologies in Health Measurement. Sports Med. 2023; Under Review.
- Muhlen, J.M.; Stang, J.; Skovgaard, E.L.; Judice, P.B.; Molina-Garcia, P.; Johnston, W.; Sardinha, L.B.; Ortega, F.B.; Caulfield, B.; Bloch, W.; et al. Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearable heart rate devices: Expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE Network. Br. J. Sports Med. 2021, 55, 767-779. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Keogh, A.; Argent, R.; Anderson, A.; Caulfield, B.; Johnston, W. Assessing the usability of wearable devices to measure gait and physical activity in chronic conditions: A systematic review. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2021, 18, 138. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Keogh, A.; Dorn, J.F.; Walsh, L.; Calvo, F.; Caulfield, B. Comparing the Usability and Acceptability of Wearable Sensors Among Older Irish Adults in a Real-World Context: Observational Study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2020, 8, e15704. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Duignan, C.; Slevin, P.; Caulfield, B.; Blake, C. Mobile athlete self-report measures and the complexities of implementation. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2019, 18, 405-412. [PubMed]
- Duignan, C.; Slevin, P.; Caulfield, B.; Blake, C. Exploring the use of mobile athlete self-report measures in elite Gaelic games: A qualitative approach. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 3491-3499. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Argent, R.; Slevin, P.; Bevilacqua, A.; Neligan, M.; Daly, A.; Caulfield, B. Clinician perceptions of a prototype wearable exercise biofeedback system for orthopaedic rehabilitation: A qualitative exploration. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e026326. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Keogh, A.; Brennan, C.; Johnston, W.; Dickson, J.; Leslie, S.J.; Burke, D.; Megyesi, P.; Caulfield, B. Six-month pilot testing of a digital health tool to support effective self-care in people with heart failure: A mixed methods study. JMIR Form. Res. 2023, 8, e52442. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
- Keogh, A.; Johnston, W.; Ashton, M.; Sett, N.; Mullan, R.; Donnelly, S.; Dorn, J.F.; Calvo, F.; Mac Namee, B.; Caulfield, B. "It's Not as Simple as Just Looking at One Chart": A Qualitative Study Exploring Clinician's Opinions on Various Visualisation Strategies to Represent Longitudinal Actigraphy Data. Digit. Biomark. 2020, 4, 87-99. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Keogh, A.; Taraldsen, K.; Caulfield, B.; Vereijken, B. "It's not about the capture, it's about what we can learn": A qualitative study of experts' opinions and experiences regarding the use of wearable sensors to measure gait and physical activity. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2021, 18, 78. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Keel, S.; Schmid, A.; Keller, F.; Schoeb, V. Investigating the use of digital health tools in physiotherapy: Facilitators and barriers. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2022, 39, 1449-1468. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- van Berkel, N.; Luo, C.; Ferreira, D.; Goncalves, J.; Kostakos, V. The Curse of the Quantified Self: An Endless Quest for Answers. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers-UbiComp'15, Osaka, Japan, 7-11 September 2015; pp. 973-978.
- Kolasa, K.; Kozinski, G. How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2119. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Keogh, A.; Mc Ardle, R.; Diaconu, M.G.; Ammour, N.; Arnera, V.; Balzani, F.; Brittain, G.; Buckley, E.; Buttery, S.; Cantu, A.; et al. Mobilizing Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Real-World Digital Technology Solutions: Tutorial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2023, 25, e44206. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Allen, A. Proceeding of the American Philosophical Assocation; American Philosophical Association: Newark, Delaware, 2019; Volume 93, pp. 21-38.
- Fennelly, O.; Voisin, B.; Olszewska, M.; Corrigan, D.; Moriarty, F.; Fahey, T.; Sarkar, D.; Nagy, S.; Wong, S. DASSL "Data Access Sharing Storage & Linkage" Proof-of-Concept: Health and Related Data Linkage in Ireland. Int. J. Popul. Data Sci. 2022, 7, 1908. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Keogh, A.; Alcock, L.; Brown, P.; Buckley, E.; Brozgol, M.; Gazit, E.; Hansen, C.; Scott, K.; Schwickert, L.; Becker, C.; et al. Acceptability of wearable devices for measuring mobility remotely: Observations from the Mobilise-D technical validation study. Digit. Health 2023, 9, 20552076221150745. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Fox, G. "To protect my health or to protect my health privacy?" A mixed-methods investigation of the privacy paradox. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2020, 71, 1015-1029. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Hirschprung, R.S. Is the Privacy Paradox a Domain-Specific Phenomenon. Computers 2023, 12, 156. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Obar, J.; Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. The Biggest Lie on the Internet: Ignoring the Privacy Policies and Terms of Service Policies of Social Networking Services. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2020, 23, 128-147. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Buschel, I.; Mehdi, R.; Cammilleri, A.; Marzouki, Y.; Elger, B. Protecting human health and security in digital Europe: How to deal with the "privacy paradox"? Sci. Eng. Ethics 2014, 20, 639-658. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Porter, M. What is value in health care? N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 2477-2481. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
- Stephens, M.; Mankee-Williams, A. The sickening truth of the digital divide: Digital health reforms and digital inequality. J. Soc. Incl. 2021, 12, 20-29.
- Makri, A. Bridging the digital divide in health care. Lancet Digit. Health 2019, 1, e204-e205. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Watts, G. COVID-19 and the digital divide in the UK. Lancet Digit. Health 2020, 2, e395-e396. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Hadjiat, Y. Healthcare inequity and digital health-A bridge for the divide, or further erosion of the chasm? PLoS Digit. Health 2023, 2, e0000268. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Charles, D.; Boyd, S.; Heckert, L.; Lake, A.; Peterson, K. Effect of payment model on patient outcomes in outpatient physical therapy. J. Allied Health 2018, 47, 72-74.
- Unsworth, H.; Dillon, B.; Collinson, L.; Powell, H.; Salmon, M.; Oladapo, T.; Ayiku, L.; Shield, G.; Holden, J.; Patel, N.; et al. The NICE Evidence Standards Framework for digital health and care technologies-Developing and maintaining an innovative evidence framework with global impact. Digit. Health 2021, 7, 20552076211018617. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Gensorowsky, D.; Witte, J.; Batram, M.; Greiner, W. Market access and value-based pricing of digital health applications in Germany. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 2022, 20, 25. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Fennelly, O.; Cunningham, C.; Grogan, L.; Cronin, H.; O'Shea, C.; Roche, M.; Lawlor, F.; O'Hare, N. Successfully implementing a national electronic health record: A rapid umbrella review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2020, 144, 104281. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
- Fennelly, O.; Grogan, L.; Reed, A.; Hardiker, N.R. Use of standardized terminologies in clinical practice: A scoping review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2021, 149, 104431. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Lehne, M.; Sass, J.; Essenwanger, A.; Schepers, J.; Thun, S. Why digital medicine depends on interoperability. NPJ Digit. Med. 2019, 2, 79. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Fennelly, O.; Moroney, D.; Doyle, D.; Eustace-Cook, J.; Hughes, M. Interoperability of Patient Portals with Electronic Health Records: A Scopring Review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2023, under review. Disclaimer/Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Self-citation
- Authors
- Keogh, A., Argent, R., Doherty, C., Duignan, C., Fennelly, O., Purcell, C., Johnston, W., & Caulfield, B.
- Venue
- Sensors
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-06-11
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3780
- ISSN
- 1424-8220
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 3
- 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