Dataset Information

Behavior Change Techniques in Wrist-Worn Wearables to Promote Physical Activity: Content Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Decreasing levels of physical activity (PA) increase the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality. To counteract these developments, interventions aiming to increase PA are urgently needed. Mobile health (mHealth) solutions such as wearable sensors (wearables) may assist with an improvement in PA.

Objective

The aim of this study is to examine which behavior change techniques (BCTs) are incorporated in currently available commercial high-end wearables that target users' PA behavior.

Methods

The BCTs incorporated in 5 different high-end wearables (Apple Watch Series 3, Garmin Vívoactive 3, Fitbit Versa, Xiaomi Amazfit Stratos 2, and Polar M600) were assessed by 2 researchers using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). Effectiveness of the incorporated BCTs in promoting PA behavior was assessed by a content analysis of the existing literature.

Results

The most common BCTs were goal setting (behavior), action planning, review behavior goal(s), discrepancy between current behavior and goal, feedback on behavior, self-monitoring of behavior, and biofeedback. Fitbit Versa, Garmin Vívoactive 3, Apple Watch Series 3, Polar M600, and Xiaomi Amazfit Stratos 2 incorporated 17, 16, 12, 11, and 11 BCTs, respectively, which are proven to effectively promote PA.

Conclusions

Wearables employ different numbers and combinations of BCTs, which might impact their effectiveness in improving PA. To promote PA by employing wearables, we encourage researchers to develop a taxonomy specifically designed to assess BCTs incorporated in wearables. We also encourage manufacturers to customize BCTs based on the targeted populations.

SUBMITTER: Duking P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7714647 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Behavior Change Techniques in Wrist-Worn Wearables to Promote Physical Activity: Content Analysis.

Düking Peter P Tafler Marie M Wallmann-Sperlich Birgit B Sperlich Billy B Sperlich Billy B Kleih Sonja S

JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20201119 11

<h4>Background</h4>Decreasing levels of physical activity (PA) increase the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality. To counteract these developments, interventions aiming to increase PA are urgently needed. Mobile health (mHealth) solutions such as wearable sensors (wearables) may assist with an improvement in PA.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study is to examine which behavior change techniques (BCTs) are incorporated in currently available commercial high-end wearabl ...[more]

PMID: 33211023

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNew 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

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:BACKGROUND:Physical activity (PA) level is associated with multiple health benefits during early childhood. However, inconsistency in the methods for quantification of PA levels among preschoolers remains a problem. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to develop PA intensity cut points for wrist-worn accelerometers by using machine learning (ML) approaches to assess PA in preschoolers. METHODS:Wrist- and hip-derived acceleration data were collected simultaneously from 34 preschoolers on 3 consecutive preschool days. Two supervised ML models, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and ordinal logistic regression (OLR), and one unsupervised ML model, k-means cluster analysis, were applied to establish wrist-worn accelerometer vector magnitude (VM) cut points to classify accelerometer counts into sedentary behavior, light PA (LPA), moderate PA (MPA), and vigorous PA (VPA). Physical activity intensity levels identified by hip-worn accelerometer VM cut points were used as reference to train the supervised ML models. Vector magnitude counts were classified by intensity based on three newly established wrist methods and the hip reference to examine classification accuracy. Daily estimates of PA were compared to the hip-reference criterion. RESULTS:In total, 3600 epochs with matched hip- and wrist-worn accelerometer VM counts were analyzed. All ML approaches performed differently on developing PA intensity cut points for wrist-worn accelerometers. Among the three ML models, k-means cluster analysis derived the following cut points: ?2556 counts per minute (cpm) for sedentary behavior, 2557-7064 cpm for LPA, 7065-14532 cpm for MPA, and ?14533 cpm for VPA; in addition, k-means cluster analysis had the highest classification accuracy, with more than 70% of the total epochs being classified into the correct PA categories, as examined by the hip reference. Additionally, k-means cut points exhibited the most accurate estimates on sedentary behavior, LPA, and VPA as the hip reference. None of the three wrist methods were able to accurately assess MPA. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates the potential of ML approaches in establishing cut points for wrist-worn accelerometers to assess PA in preschoolers. However, the findings from this study warrant additional validation studies.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity has not been objectively measured in prospective cohorts with sufficiently large numbers to reliably detect associations with multiple health outcomes. Technological advances now make this possible. We describe the methods used to collect and analyse accelerometer measured physical activity in over 100,000 participants of the UK Biobank study, and report variation by age, sex, day, time of day, and season.MethodsParticipants were approached by email to wear a wrist-worn accelerometer for seven days that was posted to them. Physical activity information was extracted from 100Hz raw triaxial acceleration data after calibration, removal of gravity and sensor noise, and identification of wear / non-wear episodes. We report age- and sex-specific wear-time compliance and accelerometer measured physical activity, overall and by hour-of-day, week-weekend day and season.Results103,712 datasets were received (44.8% response), with a median wear-time of 6.9 days (IQR:6.5-7.0). 96,600 participants (93.3%) provided valid data for physical activity analyses. Vector magnitude, a proxy for overall physical activity, was 7.5% (2.35mg) lower per decade of age (Cohen's d = 0.9). Women had a higher vector magnitude than men, apart from those aged 45-54yrs. There were major differences in vector magnitude by time of day (d = 0.66). Vector magnitude differences between week and weekend days (d = 0.12 for men, d = 0.09 for women) and between seasons (d = 0.27 for men, d = 0.15 for women) were small.ConclusionsIt is feasible to collect and analyse objective physical activity data in large studies. The summary measure of overall physical activity is lower in older participants and age-related differences in activity are most prominent in the afternoon and evening. This work lays the foundation for studies of physical activity and its health consequences. Our summary variables are part of the UK Biobank dataset and can be used by researchers as exposures, confounding factors or outcome variables in future analyses.

Project description:BackgroundThe Active2Gether intervention is an app-based intervention designed to help and encourage young adults to become and remain physically active by means of personalized, real-time activity tracking and context-specific feedback.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to describe the development and content of the Active2Gether intervention for physical activity promotion.MethodsA systematic and stepwise approach was used to develop the Active2Gether intervention. This included formulating objectives and a theoretical framework, selecting behavior change techniques, specifying the tailoring, pilot testing, and describing an evaluation protocol.ResultsThe development of the Active2Gether intervention comprised seven steps: analyzing the (health) problem, developing a program framework, writing (tailored) messages, developing tailoring assessments, developing the Active2Gether intervention, pilot testing, and testing and evaluating the intervention. The primary objective of the intervention was to increase the total time spent in moderate-vigorous physical activity for those who do not meet the Dutch guideline, maintain physical activity levels of those who meet the guideline, or further increase physical activity levels if they so indicated. The theoretical framework is informed by the social cognitive theory, and insights from other theories and evidence were added for specific topics. Development of the intervention content and communication channel resulted in the development of an app that provides highly tailored coaching messages that are framed in an autonomy-supportive style. These coaching messages include behavior change techniques aiming to address relevant behavioral determinants (eg, self-efficacy and outcome expectations) and are partly context specific. A model-based reasoning engine has been developed to tailor the intervention with respect to the type of support provided by the app, send relevant and context-specific messages to the user, and tailor the graphs displayed in the app. For the input of the tailoring, different instruments and sensors are used, such as an activity monitor (Fitbit One), Web-based and mobile questionnaires, and the location services on the user's mobile phone.ConclusionsThe systematic and stepwise approach resulted in an intervention that is based on theory and input from end users. The use of a model-based reasoning system to provide context-specific coaching messages goes beyond many existing eHealth and mHealth interventions.

Dataset Information

Behavior Change Techniques in Wrist-Worn Wearables to Promote Physical Activity: Content Analysis.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Behavior Change Techniques in Wrist-Worn Wearables to Promote Physical Activity: Content Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets