Dataset Information

Using Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches to Measure Physical Activity in Research: Analysis of Consumer Wrist-Worn Wearables.

ABSTRACT:

Background

New fitness trackers and smartwatches are released to the consumer market every year. These devices are equipped with different sensors, algorithms, and accompanying mobile apps. With recent advances in mobile sensor technology, privately collected physical activity data can be used as an addition to existing methods for health data collection in research. Furthermore, data collected from these devices have possible applications in patient diagnostics and treatment. With an increasing number of diverse brands, there is a need for an overview of device sensor support, as well as device applicability in research projects.

Objective

The objective of this study was to examine the availability of wrist-worn fitness wearables and analyze availability of relevant fitness sensors from 2011 to 2017. Furthermore, the study was designed to assess brand usage in research projects, compare common brands in terms of developer access to collected health data, and features to consider when deciding which brand to use in future research.

Methods

We searched for devices and brand names in six wearable device databases. For each brand, we identified additional devices on official brand websites. The search was limited to wrist-worn fitness wearables with accelerometers, for which we mapped brand, release year, and supported sensors relevant for fitness tracking. In addition, we conducted a Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and ClinicalTrials search to determine brand usage in research projects. Finally, we investigated developer accessibility to the health data collected by identified brands.

Results

We identified 423 unique devices from 132 different brands. Forty-seven percent of brands released only one device. Introduction of new brands peaked in 2014, and the highest number of new devices was introduced in 2015. Sensor support increased every year, and in addition to the accelerometer, a photoplethysmograph, for estimating heart rate, was the most common sensor. Out of the brands currently available, the five most often used in research projects are Fitbit, Garmin, Misfit, Apple, and Polar. Fitbit is used in twice as many validation studies as any other brands and is registered in ClinicalTrials studies 10 times as often as other brands.

Conclusions

The wearable landscape is in constant change. New devices and brands are released every year, promising improved measurements and user experience. At the same time, other brands disappear from the consumer market for various reasons. Advances in device quality offer new opportunities for research. However, only a few well-established brands are frequently used in research projects, and even less are thoroughly validated.

SUBMITTER: Henriksen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5887043 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches to Measure Physical Activity in Research: Analysis of Consumer Wrist-Worn Wearables.

Henriksen André A Haugen Mikalsen Martin M Woldaregay Ashenafi Zebene AZ Muzny Miroslav M Hartvigsen Gunnar G Hopstock Laila Arnesdatter LA Grimsgaard Sameline S

Journal of medical Internet research 20180322 3

<h4>Background</h4>New fitness trackers and smartwatches are released to the consumer market every year. These devices are equipped with different sensors, algorithms, and accompanying mobile apps. With recent advances in mobile sensor technology, privately collected physical activity data can be used as an addition to existing methods for health data collection in research. Furthermore, data collected from these devices have possible applications in patient diagnostics and treatment. With an in ...[more]

PMID: 29567635

Similar Datasets

Project description:Common, consumer-grade biosensors mounted on fitness trackers and smartwatches can measure an array of biometrics that have potential utility in post-discharge medical monitoring, especially in remote/rural communities. The feasibility characteristics for wrist-worn biosensors are poorly described for post-COVID conditions and rural populations. We prospectively recruited patients in rural communities who were enrolled in an at-home rehabilitation program for post-COVID conditions. They were asked to wear a FitBit Charge 2 device and biosensor parameters were analyzed [e.g. heart rate, sleep, and activity]. Electronic patient reported outcome measures [E-PROMS] for mental [bi-weekly] and physical [daily] symptoms were collected using SMS text or email [per patient preference]. Exit surveys and interviews evaluated the patient experience. Ten patients were observed for an average of 58 days and half [N = 5] were monitored for 8 weeks or more. Five patients [50%] had been hospitalized with COVID [mean stay = 41 days] and 4 [36%] had required mechanical ventilation. As baseline, patients had moderate to severe levels of anxiety, depression, and stress; fatigue and shortness of breath were the most prevalent physical symptoms. Four patients [40%] already owned a smartwatch. In total, 575 patient days of patient monitoring occurred across 10 patients. Biosensor data was usable for 91.3% of study hours and surveys were completed 82.1% and 78.7% of the time for physical and mental symptoms, respectively. Positive correlations were observed between stress and resting heart rate [r = 0.360, p<0.01], stress and daily steps [r = 0.335, p<0.01], and anxiety and daily steps [r = 0.289, p<0.01]. There was a trend toward negative correlation between sleep time and physical symptom burden [r = -0.211, p = 0.05]. Patients reported an overall positive experience and identified the potential for wearable devices to improve medical safety and access to care. Concerns around data privacy/security were infrequent. We report excellent feasibility characteristics for wrist-worn biosensors and e-PROMS as a possible substrate for multi-modal disease tracking in post-COVID conditions. Adapting consumer-grade wearables for medical use and scalable remote patient monitoring holds great potential.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physical activity reduces the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality, but an inactive lifestyle is becoming increasingly common. Innovative approaches to monitor and promote physical activity are warranted. While individual monitoring of physical activity aids in the design of effective interventions to enhance physical activity, a basic prerequisite is that the monitoring devices exhibit high validity. OBJECTIVE:Our goal was to assess the validity of monitoring heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity with 4 popular wrist-worn wearables (Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa). METHODS:While wearing the 4 different wearables, 25 individuals performed 5 minutes each of sitting, walking, and running at different velocities (ie, 1.1 m/s, 1.9 m/s, 2.7 m/s, 3.6 m/s, and 4.1 m/s), as well as intermittent sprints. HR and EE were compared to common criterion measures: Polar-H7 chest belt for HR and indirect calorimetry for EE. RESULTS:While monitoring HR at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.09-0.62, 0.13-0.88, 0.62-1.24, and 0.47-1.94 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 0.9%-4.3%, 2.2%-6.7%, 2.9%-9.2%, and 4.1%-19.1%, respectively, for the 4 wearables. While monitoring EE at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.34-1.84, 0.32-1.33, 0.46-4.86, and 0.41-1.65 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 13.5%-27.1%, 16.3%-28.0%, 15.9%-34.5%, and 8.0%-32.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The Apple Watch Series 4 provides the highest validity (ie, smallest error rates) when measuring HR while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity, followed by the Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, in that order. The Apple Watch Series 4 and Polar Vantage V are suitable for valid HR measurements at the intensities tested, but HR data provided by the Garmin Fenix 5 and Fitbit Versa should be interpreted with caution due to higher error rates at certain intensities. None of the 4 wrist-worn wearables should be employed to monitor EE at the intensities and durations tested.

Project description:Wearable activity trackers are newly emerging technologies with the anticipation for successfully supporting aging-in-place. Consumer-grade wearable activity trackers are increasingly ubiquitous in the market, but the attitudes toward, as well as acceptance and voluntary use of, these trackers in older population are poorly understood.The aim of this study was to assess acceptance and usage of wearable activity trackers in Canadian community-dwelling older adults, using the potentially influential factors as identified in literature and technology acceptance model.A mixed methods design was used. A total of 20 older adults aged 55 years and older were recruited from Southwestern Ontario. Participants used 2 different wearable activity trackers (Xiaomi Mi Band and Microsoft Band) separately for each segment in the crossover design study for 21 days (ie, 42 days total). A questionnaire was developed to capture acceptance and experience at the end of each segment, representing 2 different devices. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 4 participants, and a content analysis was performed.Participants ranged in age from 55 years to 84 years (mean age: 64 years). The Mi Band gained higher levels of acceptance (16/20, 80%) compared with the Microsoft Band (10/20, 50%). The equipment characteristics dimension scored significantly higher for the Mi Band (P<.05). The amount a participant was willing to pay for the device was highly associated with technology acceptance (P<.05). Multivariate logistic regression with 3 covariates resulted in an area under the curve of 0.79. Content analysis resulted in the formation of the following main themes: (1) smartphones as facilitators of wearable activity trackers; (2) privacy is less of a concern for wearable activity trackers, (3) value proposition: self-awareness and motivation; (4) subjective norm, social support, and sense of independence; and (5) equipment characteristics matter: display, battery, comfort, and aesthetics.Older adults were mostly accepting of wearable activity trackers, and they had a clear understanding of its value for their lives. Wearable activity trackers were uniquely considered more personal than other types of technologies, thereby the equipment characteristics including comfort, aesthetics, and price had a significant impact on the acceptance. Results indicated that privacy was less of concern for older adults, but it may have stemmed from a lack of understanding of the privacy risks and implications. These findings add to emerging research that investigates acceptance and factors that may influence acceptance of wearable activity trackers among older adults.

Project description:BackgroundCritical illness has been suggested as a sentinel event for frailty development in at-risk older adults. Frail critical illness survivors are affected by increased adverse health outcomes, but monitoring the recovery after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge is challenging. Clinicians and funders of health care systems envision an increased role of wearable devices in monitoring clinically relevant measures, as sensor technology is advancing rapidly. The use of wearable devices has also generated great interest among older patients, and they are the fastest growing group of consumer-grade wearable device users. Recent research studies indicate that consumer-grade wearable devices offer the possibility of measuring frailty.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine the data collected from wearable devices for the progression of frailty among critical illness survivors.MethodsAn observational study was conducted with 12 older survivors of critical illness from Kingston General Hospital in Canada. Frailty was measured using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) at ICU admission, hospital discharge, and 4-week follow-up. A wearable device was worn between hospital discharge and 4-week follow-up. The wearable device collected data on step count, physical activity, sleep, and heart rate (HR). Patient assessments were reviewed, including the severity of illness, cognition level, delirium, activities of daily living, and comorbidity.ResultsThe CFS scores increased significantly following critical illness compared with the pre-ICU frailty level (P=.02; d=-0.53). Survivors who were frail over the 4-week follow-up period had significantly lower daily step counts than survivors who were not frail (P=.02; d=1.81). There was no difference in sleep and HR measures. Daily step count was strongly correlated with the CFS at 4-week follow-up (r=-0.72; P=.04). The average HR was strongly correlated with the CFS at hospital discharge (r=-0.72; P=.046). The HR SD was strongly correlated (r=0.78; P=.02) with the change in CFS from ICU admission to 4-week follow-up. No association was found between the CFS and sleep measures. The pattern of increasing step count over the 4-week follow-up period was correlated with worsening of frailty (r=.62; P=.03).ConclusionsThis study demonstrated an association between frailty and data generated from a consumer-grade wearable device. Daily step count and HR showed a strong association with the frailty progression of the survivors of critical illness over time. Understanding this association could unlock a new avenue for clinicians to monitor and identify a vulnerable subset of the older adult population that might benefit from an early intervention.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Wrist-worn activity trackers are popular, and an increasing number of these devices are equipped with heart rate (HR) measurement capabilities. However, the validity of HR data obtained from such trackers has not been thoroughly assessed outside the laboratory setting. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to investigate the validity of HR measures of a high-cost consumer-based tracker (Polar A370) and a low-cost tracker (Tempo HR) in the laboratory and free-living settings. METHODS:Participants underwent a laboratory-based cycling protocol while wearing the two trackers and the chest-strapped Polar H10, which acted as criterion. Participants also wore the devices throughout the waking hours of the following day during which they were required to conduct at least one 10-min bout of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) to ensure variability in the HR signal. We extracted 10-second values from all devices and time-matched HR data from the trackers with those from the Polar H10. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean absolute errors, and mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs) between the criterion and the trackers. We constructed decile plots that compared HR data from Tempo HR and Polar A370 with criterion measures across intensity deciles. We investigated how many HR data points within the MVPA zone (?64% of maximum HR) were detected by the trackers. RESULTS:Of the 57 people screened, 55 joined the study (mean age 30.5 [SD 9.8] years). Tempo HR showed moderate agreement and large errors (laboratory: ICC 0.51 and MAPE 13.00%; free-living: ICC 0.71 and MAPE 10.20%). Polar A370 showed moderate-to-strong agreement and small errors (laboratory: ICC 0.73 and MAPE 6.40%; free-living: ICC 0.83 and MAPE 7.10%). Decile plots indicated increasing differences between Tempo HR and the criterion as HRs increased. Such trend was less pronounced when considering the Polar A370 HR data. Tempo HR identified 62.13% (1872/3013) and 54.27% (5717/10,535) of all MVPA time points in the laboratory phase and free-living phase, respectively. Polar A370 detected 81.09% (2273/2803) and 83.55% (9323/11,158) of all MVPA time points in the laboratory phase and free-living phase, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:HR data from the examined wrist-worn trackers were reasonably accurate in both the settings, with the Polar A370 showing stronger agreement with the Polar H10 and smaller errors. Inaccuracies increased with increasing HRs; this was pronounced for Tempo HR.

Project description:BackgroundWearable trackers for monitoring physical activity (PA) and total sleep time (TST) are increasingly popular. These devices are used not only by consumers to monitor their behavior but also by researchers to track the behavior of large samples and by health professionals to implement interventions aimed at health promotion and to remotely monitor patients. However, high costs and accuracy concerns may be barriers to widespread adoption.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the concurrent validity of 6 low-cost activity trackers for measuring steps, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and TST: Geonaut On Coach, iWown i5 Plus, MyKronoz ZeFit4, Nokia GO, VeryFit 2.0, and Xiaomi MiBand 2.MethodsA free-living protocol was used in which 20 adults engaged in their usual daily activities and sleep. For 3 days and 3 nights, they simultaneously wore a low-cost tracker and a high-cost tracker (Fitbit Charge HR) on the nondominant wrist. Participants wore an ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer on the hip at daytime and a BodyMedia SenseWear device on the nondominant upper arm at nighttime. Validity was assessed by comparing each tracker with the ActiGraph GT3X+ and BodyMedia SenseWear using mean absolute percentage error scores, correlations, and Bland-Altman plots in IBM SPSS 24.0.ResultsLarge variations were shown between trackers. Low-cost trackers showed moderate-to-strong correlations (Spearman r=0.53-0.91) and low-to-good agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.51-0.90) for measuring steps. Weak-to-moderate correlations (Spearman r=0.24-0.56) and low agreement (ICC=0.18-0.56) were shown for measuring MVPA. For measuring TST, the low-cost trackers showed weak-to-strong correlations (Spearman r=0.04-0.73) and low agreement (ICC=0.05-0.52). The Bland-Altman plot revealed a variation between overcounting and undercounting for measuring steps, MVPA, and TST, depending on the used low-cost tracker. None of the trackers, including Fitbit (a high-cost tracker), showed high validity to measure MVPA.ConclusionsThis study was the first to examine the concurrent validity of low-cost trackers. Validity was strongest for the measurement of steps; there was evidence of validity for measurement of sleep in some trackers, and validity for measurement of MVPA time was weak throughout all devices. Validity ranged between devices, with Xiaomi having the highest validity for measurement of steps and VeryFit performing relatively strong across both sleep and steps domains. Low-cost trackers hold promise for monitoring and measurement of movement and sleep behaviors, both for consumers and researchers.

Dataset Information

Using Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches to Measure Physical Activity in Research: Analysis of Consumer Wrist-Worn Wearables.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Using Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches to Measure Physical Activity in Research: Analysis of Consumer Wrist-Worn Wearables.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets