The acceptability of wearable devices for promoting adolescent mental wellbeing: A systematic review
Justin Laiti, Rhieya Rahul, Merinda Mundadan, Elaine Byrne, Pádraic J. DunneBackground
Wearable devices present unique opportunities to gather behavioural and physiological data to augment digital health interventions for adolescents. However, the acceptability of these tools for mental wellbeing remains underexplored.
Objective
This systematic review synthesises existing research on the factors that influence the acceptability of wearable devices for adolescent mental wellbeing support.
Methods
Studies were included if they focused on participants aged 10-24, examined wearable devices for mental wellbeing, and presented acceptability-related outcomes. A search strategy was applied to five academic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and PsycINFO) up to April 11 th , 2025. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results were synthesised narratively, with qualitative findings analysed using thematic analysis and quantitative findings summarised descriptively. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251118226) and funded by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.
Results
Screening identified 19 studies with 1,055 total participants. Most studies were mixed methods (n=12), used wrist-worn devices (n=14), and measured heart activity (n=9). The main factors influencing acceptability included perceived effectiveness, device comfort, technical reliability, social acceptability, privacy and safety concerns, and contextual adaptation to different settings and participant needs.
Conclusion
The findings highlight that the acceptability of wearables is largely context dependent. Additionally, while wearables were noted to increase awareness and motivation, they could also amplify negative emotions which underscored a tension between the potential benefits and harms of wearables for adolescents. Limitations included heterogeneity in study design, variable reporting quality, and limited methodological consistency across studies.