Author(s):
- Zakkoyya H. Lewis
- Lauren Pritting,
- Anton-Luigi Picazo,
- Milagro JeanMarie-Tucker
Abstract:
Objective
To explore which features of wearable fitness trackers are used and deemed helpful.
Methods
Forty-seven participants took part in an online survey. All participants were over 18 years of age and owned a wearable device that objectively measured physical activity and provided feedback. The survey included questions related to the acceptance of different features of wearables, and exercise information, self-efficacy, exercise identity, motivation, and general demographics of the wearer. Seven participants took part in focus groups in an effort to gain further insight into the acceptability and utilization of wearables. Data were examined using means and frequencies.
Results
Participants were mostly young adults (18–24 years, 48.9%), White (63.8%), female (80.9%), overweight (body mass index 26.0±6.2), students (42.6%) and generally healthy. Fitbit was the most commonly owned wearable device (42.6%). Most participants had owned their device for 6–12 months (27.7%) and they wore their device daily (80.9%). The most commonly used features were rewards/badges (59.6%), notifications (52.2%), and challenges (42.6%). The features that were reportedly the most helpful, however, were motivational cues (83.3%), general health information (82.4%), and challenges (75.0%).
Conclusions
The reported use and helpfulness ratings of various features of wearables appeared to vary based on the wearer’s gender, race/ethnicity, exercise goal, exercise proficiency, preferred type of exercise, and psychosocial metrics but the results are inconclusive. Future research should evaluate whether engagement with certain features is strongly associated with improved outcomes and whether the use of these features is significantly associated with wearer characteristics.
Documentation:
https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619900059
References:
| 1. | Loomba, S, Khairnar, A. Fitness trackers market by device type (fitness bands, smartwatch, and others), display type (monochrome and colored), sales channel (online and offline), and compatibility (iOS, Android, Windows, Tizen, and others). Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2017–2023. 2018, https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/fitness-tracker-market. Google Scholar |
| 2. | Lui, S. Fitness & activity tracker – Statistics & Facts. 2019, https://www.statista.com/topics/4393/fitness-and-activity-tracker/. Google Scholar |
| 3. | Lyons, EJ, Lewis, ZH, Mayrsohn, BGet al. Behavior change techniques implemented in electronic lifestyle activity monitors: a systematic content analysis. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16: e192. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 4. | Michie, S, Abraham, C, Whittington, Cet al. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol 2009; 28: 690–701. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 5. | Tong, HL, Laranjo, L. The use of social features in mobile health interventions to promote physical activity: a systematic review. NPJ Digital Medicine 2018; 1: 43. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-018-0051-3. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 6. | Nelson, MB, Kaminsky, LA, Dickin, DCet al. Validity of consumer-based physical activity monitors for specific activity types. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2016; 48: 1619–1628. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 7. | Evenson, KR, Goto, MM, Furberg, RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12: 159. DOI 10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 8. | Brickwood, KJ, Watson, G, O’Brien, Jet al. Consumer-based wearable activity trackers increase physical activity participation: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019; 7: e11819. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 9. | Lewis, ZH, Lyons, EJ, Jarvis, JMet al. Using an electronic activity monitor system as an intervention modality: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2015; 15: 585. DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1947-3 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 10. | Sypes, EE, Newton, G, Lewis, ZH. Investigating the use of an electronic activity monitor system as a component of physical activity and weight-loss interventions in nonclinical populations: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health 2019; 16: 294–302. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 11. | Harrison, D, Marshall, P, Bianchi-Berthouze, Net al. Activity tracking: barriers, workarounds and customisation. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, 2015, pp. 617–621 Google Scholar |
| 12. | Kononova, A, Li, L, Kamp, Ket al. The use of wearable activity trackers among older adults: focus group study of tracker perceptions, motivators, and barriers in the maintenance stage of behavior change. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019; 7: e9832. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 13. | Rapp, A, Cena, F. Personal informatics for everyday life: how users without prior self-tracking experience engage with personal data. Int J Human-Computer Studies 2016; 94: 1–17. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 14. | Macridis, S, Johnston, N, Johnson, Set al. Consumer physical activity tracking device ownership and use among a population-based sample of adults. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0189298. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 15. | Alley, S, Schoeppe, S, Guertler, Det al. Interest and preferences for using advanced physical activity tracking devices: results of a national cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e011243. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 16. | Ng, K, Tynjala, J, Kokko, S. Ownership and use of commercial physical activity trackers among finnish adolescents: cross-sectional study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017; 5: e61. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 17. | Jarrahi, MH, Gafinowitz, N, Shin, G. Activity trackers, prior motivation, and perceived informational and motivational affordances. Pers Ubiquit Comput 2018; 22: 433–448. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 18. | Rogers, LQ, Courneya, KS, Verhulst, Set al. Exercise barrier and task self-efficacy in breast cancer patients during treatment. Support Care Cancer 2006; 14: 84–90. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 19. | Rogers, LQ, Shah, P, Dunnington, Get al. Social cognitive theory and physical activity during breast cancer treatment. Oncol Nurs Forum 2005; 32: 807–815. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 20. | Anderson, DF, Cychosz, CM. Development of an exercise identity scale. Percept Mot Skills 1994; 78: 747–751. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 21. | Markland, D, Tobin, V. A modification to the behavioural regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2004; 26: 191–196. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 22. | Fadness, L, Taube, A, Tylleskaar, T. How to identify information bias due to self-reporting in epidemiological research. Internet J Epidemiology 2008; 7: 28–38. Google Scholar |
| 23. | Braun, V, Clarke, V. What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being 2014; 9: 26152. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 24. | Wilson, PM, Muon, S. Psychometric properties of the exercise identity scale in a university sample. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2008; 6: 115–131. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 25. | Kim, I, Lai, PH, Lobo, Ret al. Challenges in wearable personal health monitoring systems. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2014; 2014: 5264–5267. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 26. | Nelson, EC, Verhagen, T, Noordzij, ML. Health empowerment through activity trackers: an empirical smart wristband study. Computers in Human Behavior 2016; 62: 364–374. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 27. | Eaton, DK, Kann, L, Kinchen, Set al. Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2011. MMWR Surveill Summ 2012; 61: 1–162. Google Scholar |
| 28. | Piercy, KL, Troiano, RP, Ballard, RMet al. The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. JAMA 2018; 320: 2020–2028. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |