Smartwatches and fitness trackers are everywhere now, and more Americans are buying them than ever. But a new study suggests that owning one and actually getting meaningful health value out of it are two very different things.

Researchers from Yale School of Medicine analyzed data from 17,395 participants across three national survey cycles covering 2020, 2022, and 2024, and the picture they found is more complicated than the wearable industry would like to admit.

What the numbers actually show

Wearable device use among US adults climbed from 30.2% in 2020 to 41.1% in 2024. The problem is that everything else stayed flat or got worse. Only around half of wearable users reported wearing their device every day, and that number has not improved over time.

The data sharing numbers are even more concerning. Willingness to share wearable health data with doctors dropped from 81.3% in 2020 to 73.4% in 2024. Actual data sharing with clinicians barely moved, sitting at just 14.2% in 2020 and reaching only 19.2% in 2024. That means fewer than one in five wearable users are sharing their health data with the professionals who could actually use it to provide insights.

Why the gap keeps growing

The study found that better digital literacy made people more willing to share their data, but that willingness did not translate into actual sharing in practice. The researchers point to the health system itself as the main bottleneck.

Your doctor’s system is not set up to receive data from your wearable. Most medical records cannot connect with consumer devices, and there is no standard process for clinicians to routinely review what your Apple Watch or Fitbit has tracked.

The researchers conclude that simply getting more people to wear these devices will not close this gap. The health system needs to build the infrastructure to use the data that people are collecting.

Skill-based matchmaking was built to make competitive games feel legitimate. A new study says that balance can carry a hidden cost, because equal-skill contests can create the kind of losing streaks that push people out of the queue.

The research, published in Management Science, argues that game matchmaking works better when it looks beyond raw ability and accounts for how people react to recent wins, losses, and competitive patterns. In an analysis of 5.4 million Lichess matches, optimized matchmaking lifted engagement by 4% to 6% compared with conventional skill-based approaches.

The old skill-based matchmaking or SBMM rulebook now looks too blunt for platforms fighting to keep people around.

Why do fair matches backfire

SBMM pairs opponents near the same ability level to create balanced contests. On paper, that sounds like the cleanest answer. Nobody wants to get crushed by someone far better, and nobody learns much from steamrolling a beginner.

The problem is sequence. A single loss is part of competition, but a run of losses can make a player feel trapped in a system that keeps serving up frustration.

That is the behavioral gap standard matchmaking misses. Each round shapes the next decision, whether someone queues again, takes a break, or closes the game for the night.

How much engagement is at stake

The Lichess data gives the finding real weight. Across 5.4 million matches, the optimized system increased engagement by 4% to 6% over regular skill-based matchmaking. In theoretical scenarios, the gains reached as high as 50%.

For players, the change would be subtle. A better system would treat recent outcomes as part of the signal, then build matchups around the longer session instead of leaning only on ratings.

For game makers, those small percentages can add up fast. According to the Global Games Market Report, the global gaming market is projected to generate nearly $188 billion annually, so even modest retention gains can turn into real platform value.

When does retention go too far

Smarter matchmaking doesn’t give developers a free pass to manipulate the queue. It raises a harder trust problem, because competitive integrity and retention goals can pull in different directions when systems become harder to read.

That tension gets sharper around pay-to-win design. The research found that paid advantages can improve engagement under specific conditions by changing the skill mix, but it does not present that as a universal win. More engagement isn’t always a better experience.

The danger for studios is invisible matchmaking that players stop trusting. If developers move beyond pure SBMM, they’ll need to prove the queue still respects competition. The next version of matchmaking has to keep people playing without making the game feel managed against them.