OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the suitability of Fitbit devices for real-time physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) monitoring in the context of just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) and event-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies. METHODS: Thirty-seven adults (18-65 years) and 32 older adults (65+) from Belgium and the Czech Republic wore four devices simultaneously for 3 days: two Fitbit models on the wrist, an ActiGraph GT3X+ at the hip and an ActivPAL at the thigh. Accuracy measures included mean (absolute) error and mean (absolute) percentage error. Concurrent validity was assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analyses. Fitbit's sensitivity and specificity for detecting stepping events across different thresholds and durations were calculated compared to ActiGraph, while ROC curve analyses identified optimal Fitbit thresholds for detecting sedentary events according to ActivPAL. RESULTS: Fitbits demonstrated validity in measuring steps on a short time scale compared to ActiGraph. Except for stepping above 120 steps/min in older adults, both Fitbit models detected stepping bouts in adults and older adults with sensitivities and specificities exceeding 87% and 97%, respectively. Optimal cut-off values for identifying prolonged sitting bouts achieved sensitivities and specificities greater than 93% and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides practical insights into using Fitbit devices in JITAIs and event-based EMA studies among adults and older adults. Fitbits' reasonable accuracy in detecting short bouts of stepping and SB makes them suitable for triggering JITAI prompts or EMA questionnaires following a PA or SB event of interest.

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture Department of Information Technology Ghent University Ghent Belgium

Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Physical Activity and Health Department of Movement and Sports Sciences Ghent University Ghent Belgium

Research Foundation Flanders Brussels Belgium

See more in PubMed

Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet 2012; 380: 219–229. PubMed PMC

Ekelund U, Tarp J, Steene-Johannessen J, et al. Dose–response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. Br Med J 2019; 366: l4570. PubMed PMC

Schuch FB, Vancampfort D, Richards J, et al. Exercise as a treatment for depression: a meta-analysis adjusting for publication bias. J Psychiatr Res 2016; 77: 42–51. PubMed

Rezende LFM, Sá TH, Mielke GI, et al. All-cause mortality attributable to sitting time: analysis of 54 countries worldwide. Am J Prev Med 2016; 51: 253–263. PubMed

Shrestha N, Grgic J, Wiesner G, et al. Effectiveness of interventions for reducing non-occupational sedentary behaviour in adults and older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2019; 53: 1206–1213. PubMed

Conn VS, Hafdahl AR, Mehr DR. Interventions to increase physical activity among healthy adults: meta-analysis of outcomes. Am J Public Health 2011; 101: 751–758. PubMed PMC

Müller-Riemenschneider F, Reinhold T, Nocon M, et al. Long-term effectiveness of interventions promoting physical activity: a systematic review. Prev Med 2008; 47: 354–368. PubMed

Dishman RK, Buckworth J. Increasing physical activity: a quantitative synthesis. 2007. PubMed

Spence JC, Lee RE. Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity. Psychol Sport Exerc 2003; 4: 7–24.

Conroy DE, Maher JP, Elavsky S, et al. Sedentary behavior as a daily process regulated by habits and intentions. Health Psychol 2013; 32: 1149–1157. PubMed PMC

Maes I, Mertens L, Poppe L, et al. The variability of emotions, physical complaints, intention, and self-efficacy: an ecological momentary assessment study in older adults. PeerJ 2022; 10: e13234. PubMed PMC

Dunton GF. Ecological momentary assessment in physical activity research. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2017; 45: 48–54. PubMed PMC

Nahum-Shani I, Smith S, Tewari A, et al. Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs): an organizing framework for ongoing health behavior support:(Technical Report No. 14-126). University Park, PA: The Methodology Center, Penn State, 2014.

Hardeman W, Houghton J, Lane K, et al. A systematic review of Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) to promote physical activity. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2019; 16: 31. PubMed PMC

Nahum-Shani I, Smith SN, Spring BJ, et al. Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Ann Behav Med 2018; 52: 446–462. PubMed PMC

Stone AA, Shiffman S. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Ann Behav Med 1994; 16: 199–202.

Schüz N, Cianchi J, Shiffman S, et al. Novel technologies to study smoking behavior: current developments in ecological momentary assessment. Curr Addict Rep 2015; 2: 8–14.

Kaplan RM, Stone AA. Bringing the laboratory and clinic to the community: mobile technologies for health promotion and disease prevention. Annu Rev Psychol 2013; 64: 471–498. PubMed

Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2008; 4: 1–32. PubMed

Ringeval M, Wagner G, Denford J, et al. Fitbit-based interventions for healthy lifestyle outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e23954–e23954. PubMed PMC

Degroote L, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Verloigne M, et al. The accuracy of smart devices for measuring physical activity in daily life: validation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018; 6: e10972. PubMed PMC

Dunton GF, Dzubur E, Intille S. Feasibility and performance test of a real-time sensor-informed context-sensitive ecological momentary assessment to capture physical activity. J Med Internet Res 2016; 18: e106. PubMed PMC

Giurgiu M, Timm I, Becker M, et al. Quality evaluation of free-living validation studies for the assessment of 24-hour physical behavior in adults via wearables: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022; 10: e36377. PubMed PMC

Keadle SK, Lyden KA, Strath SJ, et al. A framework to evaluate devices that assess physical behavior. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2019; 47: 206–214. PubMed

Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2015; 12: 59. PubMed PMC

Feehan LM, Geldman J, Sayre EC, et al. Accuracy of Fitbit devices: systematic review and narrative syntheses of quantitative data. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018; 6: e10527. PubMed PMC

Santos-Lozano A, Santin-Medeiros F, Cardon G, et al. Actigraph GT3X: validation and determination of physical activity intensity cut points. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 975–982. PubMed

Storti KL, Pettee KK, Brach JS, et al. Gait speed and step-count monitor accuracy in community-dwelling older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40: 59–64. Article; Proceedings Paper. PubMed

Kim Y, Barry VW, Kang M. Validation of the ActiGraph GT3X and activPAL accelerometers for the assessment of sedentary behavior. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2015; 19: 125–137.

Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Lyden K, et al. Validation of wearable monitors for assessing sedentary behavior. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2011; 43: 1561–1567. PubMed

Godfrey A, Culhane KM, Lyons GM. Comparison of the performance of the activPAL professional physical activity logger to a discrete accelerometer-based activity monitor. Med Eng Phys 2007; 29: 930–934. PubMed

Hart TL, Ainsworth BE, Tudor-Locke C. Objective and subjective measures of sedentary behavior and physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2011; 43: 449–456. PubMed

Ryan CG, Grant PM, Tigbe WW, et al. The validity and reliability of a novel activity monitor as a measure of walking. Br J Sports Med 2006; 40: 779–784. PubMed PMC

Johnston W, Judice PB, García PM, et al. Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearable and smartphone step count: expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE network. Br J Sports Med 2021; 55: 780–793. PubMed PMC

Github. teramonagi fitbitr.

Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, et al. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40: 181–188. PubMed

O'Brien MW, Pellerine LP, Shivgulam ME, et al. Disagreements in physical activity monitor validation study guidelines create challenges in conducting validity studies. Front Digit Health 2022; 4: 1063324. PubMed PMC

Johnston W, Judice PB, Molina García P, et al. Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearable and smartphone step count: expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE network. Br J Sports Med 2021; 55: 780–793. PubMed PMC

GB M. A proposal for strength-of-agreement criteria for Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient. NIWA Client Report: HAM2005-062. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research: Hamilton, New Zeeland; 2005.

Dall PM, McCrorie PR, Granat MH, et al. Step accumulation per minute epoch is not the same as cadence for free-living adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013; 45: 1995–2001. PubMed

Watson PF, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology 2010; 73: 1167–1179. PubMed

Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; 3: 32–35. PubMed

Tudor-Locke C, Barreira TV, Schuna Jr JM. Comparison of step outputs for waist and wrist accelerometer attachment sites. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2015; 47: 839–842. PubMed

Romkes J, Bracht-Schweizer K. The effects of walking speed on upper body kinematics during gait in healthy subjects. Gait Posture 2017; 54: 304–310. PubMed

Degroote L, DeSmet A, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. Content validity and methodological considerations in ecological momentary assessment studies on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2020; 17: 35. PubMed PMC

Maher J, Rebar A, Dunton G. Ecological momentary assessment is a feasible and valid methodological tool to measure older adults’ physical activity and sedentary behavior. Front Psychol 2018; 9: 1485. PubMed PMC

Rutten GM, Savelberg HH, Biddle SJ, et al. Interrupting long periods of sitting: good STUFF. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013; 10: 1. PubMed PMC

WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: Web Annex. Evidence profiles. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2020, Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

Schneider M, Chau L. Validation of the Fitbit Zip for monitoring physical activity among free-living adolescents. BMC Res Notes 2016; 9: 48. PubMed PMC

Tully MA, McBride C, Heron L, et al. The validation of Fitbit Zip™ physical activity monitor as a measure of free-living physical activity. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 52. PubMed PMC

Dominick GM, Winfree KN, Pohlig RT, et al. Physical activity assessment between consumer- and research-grade accelerometers: a comparative study in free-living conditions. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016; 4: e110. PubMed PMC

Bunn JA, Navalta JW, Fountaine CJ, et al. Current state of commercial wearable technology in physical activity monitoring 2015-2017. Int J Exerc Sci 2018; 11: 503–515. PubMed PMC

Matlary RED, Holme PA, Glosli H, et al. Comparison of free-living physical activity measurements between ActiGraph GT3X-BT and Fitbit charge 3 in young people with haemophilia. Haemophilia 2022; 28: e172–e180. PubMed PMC

Chu AHY, Ng SHX, Paknezhad M, et al. Comparison of wrist-worn Fitbit flex and waist-worn ActiGraph for measuring steps in free-living adults. PLOS ONE 2017; 12: e0172535. PubMed PMC

Germini F, Noronha N, Borg Debono V, et al. Accuracy and acceptability of wrist-wearable activity-tracking devices: systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24: e30791. PubMed PMC

Nelson R, Hasanaj K, Connolly G, et al. Comparison of wrist- and hip-worn activity monitors when meeting step guidelines. Prev Chronic Dis 2022; 19: E18. PubMed PMC

Jones DM, Hart HF, Crossley KM, et al. What is the agreement between two generations of commercial accelerometer in a free-living environment for young to middle-aged adults? Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour 2019; 2: 49–57.

Fitabase. 2023.

Vetrovsky T, Kral N, Pfeiferova M, et al. mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED): rationale and study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2023; 23: 13. PubMed PMC

Kitsiou S, Thomas M, Marai GE, et al. Development of an innovative mHealth platform for remote physical activity monitoring and health coaching of cardiac rehabilitation patients. In: 2017 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical & Health Informatics (BHI) 16-19 Feb. 2017 2017, pp.133–136.

Laranjo L, Ding D, Heleno B, et al. Do smartphone applications and activity trackers increase physical activity in adults? Systematic review, meta-analysis and metaregression. Br J Sports Med 2021; 55: 422–432. PubMed

Balbim GM, Marques IG, Marquez DX, et al. Using Fitbit as an mHealth intervention tool to promote physical activity: potential challenges and solutions. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021; 9: e25289. PubMed PMC

Ngueleu A-M, Barthod C, Best KL, et al. Criterion validity of ActiGraph monitoring devices for step counting and distance measurement in adults and older adults: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2022; 19: 12. PubMed PMC

Lee JA, Williams SM, Brown DD, et al. Concurrent validation of the ActiGraph GT3X+, polar active accelerometer, Omron HJ-720 and Yamax Digiwalker SW-701 pedometer step counts in lab-based and free-living settings. J Sports Sci 2015; 33: 991–1000. PubMed

Sirard J, Pate R. Physical activity assessment in children and adolescents. Sports Medicine (Auckland, NZ) 2001; 31: 439–454. PubMed

Ferguson T, Rowlands AV, Olds T, et al. The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2015; 12: 42. PubMed PMC

Reid RER, Insogna JA, Carver TE, et al. Validity and reliability of Fitbit activity monitors compared to ActiGraph GT3X+ with female adults in a free-living environment. J Sci Med Sport 2017; 20: 578–582. PubMed

Slaght J, Sénéchal M, Hrubeniuk TJ, et al. Walking cadence to exercise at moderate intensity for adults: a systematic review. J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp) 2017; 2017: 4641203. PubMed PMC

Rowe D, Welk G, Heil D, et al. Stride rate recommendations for moderate-intensity walking. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011; 43: 312–318. PubMed

Tudor-Locke C, Sisson SB, Collova T, et al. Pedometer-determined step count guidelines for classifying walking intensity in a young ostensibly healthy population. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 2005; 30: 666–676. PubMed

Delobelle J. Data [Internet]. Ghent, Belgium: OSF, 2023. Available from: osf.io/jva8c.

mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED): statistical analysis plan

Sensor-triggered ecological momentary assessment in physical activity and sedentary behaviour research among Belgian community-dwelling elderly: lessons learnt from intensive longitudinal studies

Contexts, affective and physical states and their variations during physical activity in older adults: an intensive longitudinal study with sensor-triggered event-based ecological momentary assessments

Ecological momentary assessment of physical and eating behaviours: The WEALTH feasibility and optimisation study with recommendations for large-scale data collection

Participatory development of an mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED)