Abstract
The rapid proliferation of wearable health technologies has revolutionized chronic illness management by enabling continuous, real-time monitoring of physiological signals. However, the collection and transmission of highly sensitive health data generate profound privacy concerns among patient populations. This study systematically investigates the factors shaping privacy concerns in wearable data sharing, with a specific focus on the role of equity monitoring in chronic illness groups. Integrating privacy calculus theory with socioeconomic equity frameworks, we establish a comprehensive model to analyze how perceived benefits, perceived risks, trust in healthcare institutions, and digital equity impact patients' willingness to share data. Through a survey of chronic illness patients, we examine the structural relationships between these variables. The empirical findings indicate that while health benefits strongly motivate data sharing, privacy concerns remain a substantial barrier, particularly exacerbated by perceived inequities in data access and algorithmic bias. Moreover, equity monitoring acts as a critical moderator that can mitigate privacy anxieties when patients perceive that data collection leads to fairer healthcare distribution. This research contributes to health informatics literature by providing a nuanced understanding of how privacy and equity intersect in digital health ecosystems, offering actionable insights for clinicians, developers, and policymakers aiming to design inclusive and secure health-monitoring interventions.References
1. Martischang, R.; Nikolaou, A.; Daali, Y.; Samer, C.F.; Terrier, J. Guidance on Selecting Optimal Steady-State Tacrolimus Concentrations for Continuous IV Perfusion: Insights from Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling. Pharmaceuticals 2024, 17, 1047.
2. Tucker, G.T. Personalized Drug Dosage—Closing the Loop. Pharm. Res. 2017, 34, 1539–1543.
3. Li, Y.; Sun, H.; Zhang, Z. The Evolution and Future Directions of PBPK Modeling in FDA Regulatory Review. Pharmaceutics 2025, 17, 1413.
4. Mostafa, S.; Polasek, T.M.; Bousman, C.; Rostami-Hodjegan, A.; Sheffield, L.J.; Everall, I.; Pantelis, C.; Kirkpatrick, C.M.J. Delineating gene-environment effects using virtual twins of patients treated with clozapine. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 2023, 12, 168–179.
5. Gaspar, F.; Terrier, J.; Jacot-Descombes, C.; Gosselin, P.; Ardoino, V.; Lenoir, C.; Rollason, V.; Csajka, C.; Samer, C.F.; Fontana, P.; et al. Virtual twin approach using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling in hospitalized patients treated with apixaban or rivaroxaban. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2025, 91, 2057–2069.
6. Mostafa, S.; Rafizadeh, R.; Polasek, T.M.; Bousman, C.A.; Rostami-Hodjegan, A.; Stowe, R.; Carrion, P.; Sheffield, L.J.; Kirkpatrick, C.M.J. Virtual twins for model-informed precision dosing of clozapine in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 2024, 13, 424–436.
7. Chou, P.; Shannar, A.; Pan, Y.; Dave, P.D.; Xu, J.; Kong, A.-N.T. Application of Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Model in Drug Development and in Dietary Phytochemicals. Curr. Pharmacol. Rep. 2025, 11, 45.
8. Murad, N.; Pasikanti, K.K.; Madej, B.D.; Minnich, A.; McComas, J.M.; Crouch, S.; Polli, J.W.; Weber, A.D. Predicting Volume of Distribution in Humans: Performance of In Silico Methods for a Large Set of Structurally Diverse Clinical Compounds. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2021, 49, 169–178.
9. Garcia-Perez, M.A. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Null Hypothesis Significance Testing. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2017, 77, 631–662.
10. Johnstone, D.J. Tests of Significance in Theory and Practice. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. D (Stat.) 1986, 35, 491–498.
11. Gelman, A.; Loken, E. The Garden of Forking Paths: Why Multiple Comparisons Can Be a Problem, Even When There Is No “Fishing Expedition” or “p-Hacking” and the Research Hypothesis was Posited Ahead of Time; Department of Statistics, Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
12. Manallack, D.T. The pK(a) Distribution of Drugs: Application to Drug Discovery. Perspect. Medicin. Chem. 2007, 1, 25–38.
13. Garcia, L.P. Mechanistic Based Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamics Models for Drug Interactions and Disease Population Predictions; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Uppsala, Sweden, 2023.
14. Perezgonzalez, J.D. Fisher, Neyman-Pearson or NHST? A tutorial for teaching data testing. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 223. [ Central]
15. Rozeboom, W.W. The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. Psychol. Bull. 1960, 57, 416–428.
16. Gao, J. P-values—A chronic conundrum. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2020, 20, 167.
17. Geddes, D.T. Inside the Lactating Breast: The Latest Anatomy Research. J. Midwifery Womens Health 2007, 52, 556–563.
18. Szucs, D.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. When Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Is Unsuitable for Research: A Reassessment. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 390. [ Central]
19. Amrhein, V.; Greenland, S.; McShane, B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 2019, 567, 305–307.
20. Trabilsy, M.; Haider, S.A.; Borna, S.; Gomez-Cabello, C.A.; Genovese, A.; Prabha, S.; Forte, A.J.; Rinker, B.D.; Ho, O.A.; Elegbede, A.I. Exploring Breast Implant Illness and Its Comorbid Conditions: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2025, 105, 41–54.
21. Mansoor, A.; Mahabadi, N. Volume of Distribution. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2025.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors
