Role of Wearable Devices in Monitoring Rehabilitation Outcomes in Physiotherapy Patients
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: In physiotherapy, keeping track of how patients recover is very important. Usually, therapists rely on clinic visits, short physical tests, or patient feedback. This means small changes in daily activity or function may not always be noticed. Recently, wearable devices have started being used more in rehabilitation. These small gadgets can track movement, activity, and other body signals continuously, even outside the clinic. Objective: To explore the role of wearable devices in monitoring rehabilitation outcomes in physiotherapy patients. Methodology: We conducted this systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines to evaluate experimental studies using wearable devices to monitor rehabilitation outcomes in physiotherapy patients (2015–2025). Studies included musculoskeletal, neurological, cardiac, and pulmonary patients using devices such as smartwatches, motion sensors, IMUs, and biofeedback tools. Only experimental designs published in English were included, while reviews, case reports, and studies on healthy participants were excluded. Four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched using combined keywords. After screening 1,268 records and removing duplicates, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria. Data on study design, devices, outcomes, and findings were extracted and synthesized qualitatively due to heterogeneity. Independent reviewers ensured unbiased selection, providing a structured evaluation of wearable technology in rehabilitation monitoring. Results: A total of thirty studies met the inclusion criteria. Wearable devices were used to track activity levels, walking patterns, joint movements, muscle activity, and other body signals during rehabilitation. Many studies showed that wearable data reflected improvements in function and helped therapists follow patient progress more closely. However, studies differed in design, device types, outcome measures, and rehab programs. Conclusion: Wearable devices seem useful for tracking rehabilitation outcomes in physiotherapy. They may help therapists plan treatment better and allow patients to be monitored remotely. Still, more well-designed, larger studies are needed to develop consistent methods and support wider use in clinics.
Downloads
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. Jung SJ, Kim JH, Rhee SJ. Home-based rehabilitation using a wearable motion tracker with smart phone application feedback is as effective as conventional self-directed rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: randomized controlled trial. BMC Sports Science, Medicine & Rehabilitation 2025; 17(1): 370. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-025-01374-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-025-01374-1
2. O’Brien MK, Shin SY, Khazanchi R, et al. Wearable sensors improve prediction of post-stroke walking function following inpatient rehabilitation. IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine 2022; 10: 2100711. https://doi.org/10.1109/JTEHM.2022.3208585 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/JTEHM.2022.3208585
3. Tao W, Liu T, Zheng R, et al. Gait analysis using wearable sensors. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 2012; 12(2): 2255–83. https://doi.org/10.3390/s120202255 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s120202255
4. Lee A, Dionicio P, Farcas E, et al. Physical therapists’ acceptance of a wearable, fabric-based sensor system (motion tape) for use in clinical practice: qualitative focus group study. JMIR Human Factors 2024; 11: e55246. https://doi.org/10.2196/55246 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/55246
5. Latif A, Al Janabi HF, Joshi M, et al. Use of commercially available wearable devices for physical rehabilitation in healthcare: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2024; 14(11): e084086. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084086 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084086
6. Gu B, Kim HS, Kim H, et al. Advancements in wearable sensor technologies for health monitoring in terms of clinical applications, rehabilitation, and disease risk assessment: systematic review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2026; 14: e76084. https://doi.org/10.2196/76084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/76084
7. Broderick J, Haberlin C, O Donnell DM. Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a physiotherapy-led remotely delivered physical activity intervention in cancer survivors using wearable technology. The IMPETUS trial. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 2024; 40(5): 929–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2022.2147408 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2022.2147408
8. Oliveira TRA, do Nascimento AT, Santino TA, et al. Effects of wearable devices on physical activity monitoring in pulmonary rehabilitation programs for chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports 2025; 15(1): 44767. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-28554-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-28554-w
9. Babaei N, Hannani N, Dabanloo NJ, et al. A systematic review of the use of commercial wearable activity trackers for monitoring recovery in individuals undergoing total hip replacement surgery. Cyborg and Bionic Systems (Washington, D.C.) 2022; 9794641. https://doi.org/10.34133/2022/9794641 DOI: https://doi.org/10.34133/2022/9794641
10. Bowman T, Gervasoni E, Arienti C, et al. Wearable devices for biofeedback rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis to design application rules and estimate the effectiveness on balance and gait outcomes in neurological diseases. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 2021; 21(10): 3444. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21103444 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21103444
11. Kanai M, Izawa KP, Kobayashi M, et al. Effect of accelerometer-based feedback on physical activity in hospitalized patients with ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation 2018; 32(8): 1047–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518755841 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518755841
12. Rodgers MM, Alon G, Pai VM, et al. Wearable technologies for active living and rehabilitation: Current research challenges and future opportunities. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering 2019; 6: 2055668319839607. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668319839607 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668319839607
13. Ferguson T, Olds T, Curtis R, et al. Effectiveness of wearable activity trackers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Lancet. Digital Health 2022; 4(8): e615–e626. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00111-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00111-X
14. Parker J, Powell L, Mawson S. Effectiveness of upper limb wearable technology for improving activity and participation in adult stroke survivors: systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2020; 22(1): e15981. https://doi.org/10.2196/15981 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/15981
15. Feng Y, Liu Y, Fang Y, et al Advances in the application of wearable sensors for gait analysis after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Arthroplasty (London, England) 2023; 5(1): 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-023-00204-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-023-00204-4
16. Chen YP, Lin CY, Kuo YJ, et al. Feasibility and Effect of a wearable motion sensor device in facilitating in-home rehabilitation program in patients after total knee arthroplasty: a preliminary study. Applied Sciences 2022; 12(5): 2433. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052433 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052433
17. Wang FY, Xu Y, Luo LY, et al. Can wearable real-time biofeedback gait training devices improve gait speed, balance, functional mobility and activities of daily living (ADL) in individuals post-stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 2025; 23(1): 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-025-01863-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-025-01863-x
18. Nieboer M, Jie LJ, Willemse L, et al. Attitudes towards a sensor-feedback technology in gait rehabilitation of patients after stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology 2023; 18(6): 889–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2021.1936664 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2021.1936664
19. Hannan AL, Harders MP, Hing W, et al. Impact of wearable physical activity monitoring devices with exercise prescription or advice in the maintenance phase of cardiac rehabilitation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation 2019; 11: 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-019-0126-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-019-0126-8
20. Brognara L, Mazzotti A, Zielli SO, et al. Wearable technology applications and methods to assess clinical outcomes in foot and ankle disorders: achievements and perspectives. Sensors 2024; 24(21): 7059. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24217059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s24217059
21. Peters DM, O’Brien ES, Kamrud KE, et al. Utilization of wearable technology to assess gait and mobility post-stroke: a systematic review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 2021; 18(1): 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00863-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00863-x
22. Chen YP, Lin CY, Tsai MJ, et al. Wearable motion sensor device to facilitate rehabilitation in patients with shoulder adhesive capsulitis: pilot study to assess feasibility. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2020; 22(7): e17032. https://doi.org/10.2196/17032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/17032