-
Something wrong with this record ?
Using Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches to Measure Physical Activity in Research: Analysis of Consumer Wrist-Worn Wearables
A. Henriksen, M. Haugen Mikalsen, AZ. Woldaregay, M. Muzny, G. Hartvigsen, LA. Hopstock, S. Grimsgaard,
Language English Country Canada
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 1999
Free Medical Journals
from 1999
Freely Accessible Science Journals
from 1999
PubMed Central
from 1999
Europe PubMed Central
from 1999
ProQuest Central
from 2001-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 1999-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 1999-01-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2005-02-24
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2001-01-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2001-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 1999
PubMed
29567635
DOI
10.2196/jmir.9157
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Exercise physiology MeSH
- Fitness Trackers trends MeSH
- Photoplethysmography methods MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Mobile Applications trends MeSH
- Wearable Electronic Devices trends MeSH
- Heart Rate physiology MeSH
- Wrist MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
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.
Department of Community Medicine University of Tromsø The Arctic University of Norway Tromsø Norway
Department of Computer Science University of Tromsø The Arctic University of Norway Tromsø Norway
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19028511
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20190823125157.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 190813s2018 xxc f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.2196/jmir.9157 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29567635
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxc
- 100 1_
- $a Henriksen, André $u Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
- 245 10
- $a Using Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches to Measure Physical Activity in Research: Analysis of Consumer Wrist-Worn Wearables / $c A. Henriksen, M. Haugen Mikalsen, AZ. Woldaregay, M. Muzny, G. Hartvigsen, LA. Hopstock, S. Grimsgaard,
- 520 9_
- $a 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.
- 650 _2
- $a cvičení $x fyziologie $7 D015444
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a fitness náramky $x trendy $7 D000072936
- 650 _2
- $a srdeční frekvence $x fyziologie $7 D006339
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a mobilní aplikace $x trendy $7 D063731
- 650 _2
- $a fotopletysmografie $x metody $7 D017156
- 650 _2
- $a nositelná elektronika $x trendy $7 D000076251
- 650 _2
- $a zápěstí $7 D014953
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Haugen Mikalsen, Martin $u Department of Computer Science, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
- 700 1_
- $a Woldaregay, Ashenafi Zebene $u Department of Computer Science, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
- 700 1_
- $a Muzny, Miroslav $u Norwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway. Spin-Off Company and Research Results Commercialization Center, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Hartvigsen, Gunnar $u Department of Computer Science, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
- 700 1_
- $a Hopstock, Laila Arnesdatter $u Department of Health and Care Sciences, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
- 700 1_
- $a Grimsgaard, Sameline $u Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00007388 $t Journal of medical Internet research $x 1438-8871 $g Roč. 20, č. 3 (2018), s. e110
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29567635 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20190813 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20190823125411 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1433660 $s 1066971
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 20 $c 3 $d e110 $e 20180322 $i 1438-8871 $m JMIR. Journal of medical internet research $n J Med Internat Res $x MED00007388
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20190813