scholarly journals Use of Physical Activity Monitoring Devices by Families in Rural Communities: Qualitative Approach

10.2196/10658 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. e10658
Author(s):  
Iryna Sharaievska ◽  
Rebecca A Battista ◽  
Jennifer Zwetsloot
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Activity Monitoring ◽  
Physical Activity Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Devices

The Wearing Comfort and Acceptability of Ambulatory Physical Activity Monitoring Devices in Soldiers

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadja Beeler ◽  
Lilian Roos ◽  
Simon K. Delves ◽  
Bertil J. Veenstra ◽  
Karl Friedl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Activity Monitoring ◽  
Physical Activity Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Devices

scholarly journals Physical activity monitoring devices: energy expenditure comparison in a setting of free-living activities

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Matteo Vandoni ◽  
Vittoria Carnevale Pellino ◽  
Stefano Dell'Anna ◽  
Elena Ricagno ◽  
Giulia Liberali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Wearable Devices ◽  
Activity Monitoring ◽  
Percentage Error ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Sensewear Armband ◽  
Absolute Percentage Error ◽  
Physical Activity Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Devices

The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of Energy Expenditure (EE) estimation provided by 3 wearable devices [Fitbit-One (FO), Sensewear Armband (AR) and Actiheart (AC)] in a setting of free-living activities. 43 participants (24 females; 23.4±.4,5yrs) performed 9 activities: sedentary (watching video, reading), walking (on treadmill and outdoor), running (on treadmill and outdoor) and moderate-to-vigorous activities (Wii gaming, taking the stairs and playing football). Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Pearson’s correlation were calculated to assess the validity of each instrument in comparison to a portable metabolic analyser (PMA). In overall comparison MAPE’s were 7,7% for AR (r=.86; p<.0001), 8,6% for FO (r=.69; P<.001), and 11.6% for AC (r=.81; p<.0001). These findings support the accuracy of the wearables. The AR was the most accurate in the whole protocol. However, MAPE results suggest that devices algorithms should be improved for better measure of EE during moderate-to-vigorous activities.

scholarly journals Physical activity monitoring devices: energy expenditure comparison in a setting of free-living activities

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Matteo Vandoni ◽  
Vittoria Carnevale Pellino ◽  
Stefano Dell'Anna ◽  
Elena Ricagno ◽  
Giulia Liberali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Wearable Devices ◽  
Activity Monitoring ◽  
Percentage Error ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Sensewear Armband ◽  
Absolute Percentage Error ◽  
Physical Activity Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Devices

The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of Energy Expenditure (EE) estimation provided by 3 wearable devices [Fitbit-One (FO), Sensewear Armband (AR) and Actiheart (AC)] in a setting of free-living activities. 43 participants (24 females; 23.4±.4,5yrs) performed 9 activities: sedentary (watching video, reading), walking (on treadmill and outdoor), running (on treadmill and outdoor) and moderate-to-vigorous activities (Wii gaming, taking the stairs and playing football). Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Pearson’s correlation were calculated to assess the validity of each instrument in comparison to a portable metabolic analyser (PMA). In overall comparison MAPE’s were 7,7% for AR (r=.86; p<.0001), 8,6% for FO (r=.69; P<.001), and 11.6% for AC (r=.81; p<.0001). These findings support the accuracy of the wearables. The AR was the most accurate in the whole protocol. However, MAPE results suggest that devices algorithms should be improved for better measure of EE during moderate-to-vigorous activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document