Accuracy and Acceptability of Wrist-Wearable Activity Tracking Devices: A Systematic Review of the Literature. (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Germini ◽  
Noella Noronha ◽  
Victoria Borg Debono ◽  
Binu Abraham Phillip ◽  
Drashti Pete ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Step Counts ◽  
Activity Trackers ◽  
Wearable Activity Trackers

BACKGROUND Numerous wrist-wearable devices to measure physical activity are currently available, but little is known about how they compare in terms of acceptability and accuracy. OBJECTIVE We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the acceptability (defined as the level to which a device is tolerated and used by the user) and accuracy of wrist-wearable activity trackers. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and SPORTDiscus for studies measuring physical activity in the general population, using wrist-wearable activity trackers. We screened articles for inclusion and, for included studies, reported data on the studies’ setting and population, outcome measured, and risk of bias. RESULTS 65 articles were included in our review. Acceptability was more frequently measured through data availability and wearing time. Data availability was ≥ 75% for FitBit Charge HR, FitBit Flex 2, and Garmin Vivofit. The wearing time was 89% for both GENE Activ and Nike Fuelband. Accuracy was assessed for 14 different outcomes, that can be classified in the following categories: count of specific activities (including step counts), time spent being active, intensity of physical activity (including energy expenditure), heart rate, distance, and speed. Substantial clinical heterogeneity did not allow to perform a meta-analysis of the results. The outcomes assessed more frequently were step counts, heart rate, and energy expenditure. For step counts, Fitbit Charge (or Charge HR) had a MAPE < 25% across 20 studies. For heart rate, Apple watch had a MAPE < 10% in 2 studies. For energy expenditure, the MAPE > 30% for all the brands, showing poor accuracy across devices. CONCLUSIONS Fitbit Charge and Charge HR were consistently shown to have a good accuracy for step counts and Apple watch for measuring heart rate. None of the tested devices proved to be accurate in measuring energy expenditure. Efforts should be made to reduce the heterogeneity between studies

scholarly journals The Acceptability, Feasibility and Effectiveness of Wearable Activity Trackers for Increasing Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 6211
Author(s):  
Amy V. Creaser ◽  
Stacy A. Clemes ◽  
Silvia Costa ◽  
Jennifer Hall ◽  
Nicola D. Ridgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Start Date ◽  
Activity Trackers ◽  
Wearable Activity Trackers

Wearable activity trackers (wearables) embed numerous behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that have previously been shown to increase adult physical activity (PA). With few children and adolescents achieving PA guidelines, it is crucial to explore ways to increase their PA. This systematic review examined the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of wearables and their potential mechanisms of action for increasing PA in 5 to 19-year-olds. A systematic search of six databases was conducted, including data from the start date of each database to December 2019 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020164506). Thirty-three studies were included. Most studies (70%) included only adolescents (10 to 19 years). There was some—but largely mixed—evidence that wearables increase steps and moderate-to-vigorous-intensity PA and reduce sedentary behaviour. There were no apparent differences in effectiveness based on the number of BCTs used and between studies using a wearable alone or as part of a multi-component intervention. Qualitative findings suggested wearables increased motivation to be physically active via self-monitoring, goal setting, feedback, and competition. However, children and adolescents reported technical difficulties and a novelty effect when using wearables, which may impact wearables’ long-term use. More rigorous and long-term studies investigating the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of wearables in 5 to 19-year-olds are warranted.

Polar Vantage and Oura physical activity and sleep trackers: A validation and comparison study (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Henriksen ◽  
Frode Svartdal ◽  
Sameline Grimsgaard ◽  
Gunnar Hartvigsen ◽  
Laila Hopstock
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Total Energy ◽  
Sleep Duration ◽  
Vigorous Physical Activity ◽  
Total Energy Expenditure ◽  
Sleep Diary ◽  
Resting Heart Rate ◽  
Activity Trackers

BACKGROUND Consumer-based activity trackers are increasingly used in research as they have potential to increase activity participation and can be used for estimating physical activity. However, the accuracy of newer consumer-based devices is mostly unknown, and validation studies are needed. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to test the accuracy of the Polar Vantage watch and Oura ring activity trackers for measuring physical activity, total energy expenditure, resting heart rate, and sleep duration, in free-living adults. METHODS Twenty-one participants wore two consumer-based activity trackers (Polar, Oura), an ActiGraph accelerometer, an Actiheart accelerometer and heart rate monitor, and completed a sleep diary for up to seven days. We assessed Polar and Oura validity and comparability for physical activity, total energy expenditure, resting heart rate (Oura), and sleep duration. We analysed repeated measures correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and mean absolute percentage error. RESULTS Polar and Oura were both strongly correlated (p<0.001) with ActiGraph for steps (Polar r 0.75, 95% CI 0.54-0.92. Oura r 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.87), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (Polar r 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.88. Oura r 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.82), and total energy expenditure (Polar r 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.88. Oura r 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.83) and strongly or very strongly correlated (p<0.001) with the sleep diary for sleep duration (Polar r 0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.88. Oura r 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.91). Oura had a very strong correlation (p<0.001) with Actiheart for resting heart rate (r 0.9, 95% CI 0.85-0.96). However, all confidence interval ranges were wide and mean absolute percentage error was high for all variables, except Oura sleep duration (10%) and resting heart rate (3%) where Oura under-reported on average one beat per minute. CONCLUSIONS Oura can potentially be used as an alternative to Actiheart to measure resting heart rate. For sleep duration, Polar and Oura can potentially be used as a replacement for a manual sleep diary, depending on acceptable error. Neither Polar nor Oura can replace ActiGraph for measuring steps, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and total energy expenditure, but may be used as an additional source of physical activity in some settings.

scholarly journals Effects of Mobile Health Including Wearable Activity Trackers to Increase Physical Activity Outcomes Among Healthy Children and Adolescents: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgit Böhm ◽  
Svenja D Karwiese ◽  
Harald Böhm ◽  
Renate Oberhoffer
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Healthy Children ◽  
Intervention Delivery ◽  
Activity Trackers ◽  
Wearable Activity Trackers

BACKGROUND Children and adolescents do not meet the current recommendations on physical activity (PA), and as such, the health-related benefits of regular PA are not achieved. Nowadays, technology-based programs represent an appealing and promising option for children and adolescents to promote PA. OBJECTIVE The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the effects of mobile health (mHealth) and wearable activity trackers on PA-related outcomes in this target group. METHODS Electronic databases such as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched to retrieve English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals from January 2012 to June 2018. Those included were articles that contained descriptions of interventions designed to increase PA among children (aged 6 to 12 years) only, or adolescents (aged 13 to 18 years) only, or articles that include both populations, and also, articles that measured at least 1 PA-related cognitive, psychosocial, or behavioral outcome. The interventions had to be based on mHealth tools (mobile phones, smartphones, tablets, or mobile apps) or wearable activity trackers. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, cohort studies, before-and-after studies, and cross-sectional studies were considered, but only controlled studies with a PA comparison between groups were assessed for methodological quality. RESULTS In total, 857 articles were identified. Finally, 7 studies (5 with tools of mHealth and 2 with wearable activity trackers) met the inclusion criteria. All studies with tools of mHealth used an RCT design, and 3 were of high methodological quality. Intervention delivery ranged from 4 weeks to 12 months, whereby mainly smartphone apps were used as a tool. Intervention delivery in studies with wearable activity trackers covered a period from 22 sessions during school recess and 8 weeks. Trackers were used as an intervention and evaluation tool. No evidence was found for the effect of mHealth tools, respectively wearable activity trackers, on PA-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Given the small number of studies, poor compliance with accelerometers as a measuring instrument for PA, risk of bias, missing RCTs in relation to wearable activity trackers, and the heterogeneity of intervention programs, caution is warranted regarding the comparability of the studies and their effects. There is a clear need for future studies to develop PA interventions grounded on intervention mapping with a high methodological study design for specific target groups to achieve meaningful evidence.

scholarly journals Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Fuller ◽  
Emily Colwell ◽  
Jonathan Low ◽  
Kassia Orychock ◽  
Melissa Ann Tobin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
English Language ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Wearable Devices ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Wearable Activity Trackers ◽  
Fitness And Health

BACKGROUND Consumer-wearable activity trackers are small electronic devices that record fitness and health-related measures. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the validity and reliability of commercial wearables in measuring step count, heart rate, and energy expenditure. METHODS We identified devices to be included in the review. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus, and only articles published in the English language up to May 2019 were considered. Studies were excluded if they did not identify the device used and if they did not examine the validity or reliability of the device. Studies involving the general population and all special populations were included. We operationalized validity as criterion validity (as compared with other measures) and construct validity (degree to which the device is measuring what it claims). Reliability measures focused on intradevice and interdevice reliability. RESULTS We included 158 publications examining nine different commercial wearable device brands. Fitbit was by far the most studied brand. In laboratory-based settings, Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Samsung appeared to measure steps accurately. Heart rate measurement was more variable, with Apple Watch and Garmin being the most accurate and Fitbit tending toward underestimation. For energy expenditure, no brand was accurate. We also examined validity between devices within a specific brand. CONCLUSIONS Commercial wearable devices are accurate for measuring steps and heart rate in laboratory-based settings, but this varies by the manufacturer and device type. Devices are constantly being upgraded and redesigned to new models, suggesting the need for more current reviews and research.

Accuracy and precision of energy expenditure, heart rate, and steps measured by combined-sensing Fitbits against reference measures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Chevance ◽  
Natalie M. Golaszewski ◽  
Elizabeth Tipton ◽  
Eric B. Hekler ◽  
Matthew Buman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Objective Assessment ◽  
Criterion Measure ◽  
Battery Capacity ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Meta Analyses

BACKGROUND Although it is widely recognized that physical activity is an important determinant of health there is considerable challenge in assessing this complex behavior. Tools for the objective assessment of the frequency, intensity, and duration of physical activity in adults and children have largely been developed for short-term use within research or public health surveillance environments. However, recent advances in microtechnology, data processing, wireless communication, and battery capacity have resulted in the proliferation of low-cost, non-invasive, wrist-worn devices with attractive designs that can easily be used by consumers to track their physical activity over long periods of time. OBJECTIVE The purpose of the present systematic-review and meta-analyses is to examine, quantify, and report on the current state of evidence for the analytical validity of energy expenditure, heart rate, and steps measured by recent combined-sensing Fitbits. METHODS Systematic-review and Bland-Altman meta-analyses of validation studies of combined-sensing Fitbits against reference measures of energy expenditure, heart rate and steps. RESULTS A total of 52 studies were included in the systematic review. Among them, 41 were included in the meta-analyses, representing 203 individual comparisons between Fitbit devices and a criterion measure (i.e., 117 for heart rate, 49 for energy expenditure, and 37 for steps). Overall, the majority of authors of the included studies concluded that recent Fitbit models underestimate heart rate, energy expenditure, and steps compared to criterion measures. These independent conclusions aligned with the results of the pooled meta-analyses showing an average underestimation of, respectively, -2,99 bpm, -2,77 kcal/min and -3,11 steps/min of the Fitbit compared to criterion measure (results obtained after removing high risk of bias studies). CONCLUSIONS Fitbit devices are likely to underestimate heart rate, energy expenditure, and steps. The estimation of these measurements varied by quality of study, age of the participants, type of activities, and by model of Fitbit. The qualitative conclusions of the majority of studies aligned with the results of meta-analyses. Although the expected level of accuracy might vary from one context to another, this underestimation can be acceptable, on average, for steps and heart rate. Information about energy expenditure however are likely to be too unprecise.

Do Wearable Activity Trackers Increase Physical Activity Among Cardiac Rehabilitation Participants? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmel Ashur ◽  
Thomas M. Cascino ◽  
Christopher Lewis ◽  
Whitney Townsend ◽  
Ananda Sen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiac Rehabilitation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Activity Trackers ◽  
Wearable Activity Trackers
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document