Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • 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,

. 2018 ; 20 (3) : e110. [pub] 20180322

Language English Country Canada

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

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.

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...