ArticleBMJ open2016
Interest and preferences for using advanced physical activity tracking devices: results of a national cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- Engagement, acceptability, usability and satisfaction with Active for Life, a computer-tailored web-based physical activity intervention using Fitbits in older adults.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Trial
- The Effectiveness of a Computer-Tailored Web-Based Physical Activity Intervention Using Fitbit Activity Trackers in Older Adults (Active for Life): Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Web-Based Versus Print-Based Physical Activity Intervention for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Crossover Randomized Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Trial
- A Multicenter Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of a Home-Based Exercise Program for Patients With Cirrhosis: The Strength Training Intervention (STRIVE).The American journal of gastroenterology · 2021Trial
- Effect of Evidence-Based Materials and Access to Local Resources on Physical Activity Levels, Beliefs, and Motivation During Pregnancy in a Rural Setting.Journal of physical activity & health · 2020Trial
- Balanced: a randomised trial examining the efficacy of two self-monitoring methods for an app-based multi-behaviour intervention to improve physical activity, sitting and sleep in adults.BMC public health · 2016Trial
- The use of consumer-grade physical activity monitors: Insight into psychosocial determinants and technology acceptance.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Accuracy and reliability of accelerometer-based pedometers in step counts during walking, running, and stair climbing in different locations of attachment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers to measure and coach patients with lower limb lymphoedema.PloS one · 2024Article
- Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers as measuring tool and coaching device in breast and colorectal cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Validity of the Xiaomi Mi Band 2, 3, 4 and 5 Wristbands for Assessing Physical Activity in 12-to-18-Year-Old Adolescents under Unstructured Free-Living Conditions. Fit-Person Study.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2023Article
- The online delivery of exercise oncology classes supported with health coaching: a parallel pilot randomized controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Use of Wearable Activity-Monitoring Technologies to Promote Physical Activity in Cancer Survivors: Challenges and Opportunities for Improved Cancer Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Experience and Satisfaction with a Family-Based Physical Activity Intervention Using Activity Trackers and Apps: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Validity of activity wristbands for estimating daily physical activity in primary schoolchildren under free-living conditions: School-Fit study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Influence of upper limb activity on the step count and accuracy of sleep time of a wristband-type physical activity tracker.PloS one · 2022Article
- Understanding super engaged users in the 10,000 Steps online physical activity program: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Wristbands in Home-Based Rehabilitation-Validation of Heart Rate Measurement.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPedometers are an effective self-monitoring tool to increase users' physical activity. However, a range of advanced trackers that measure physical activity 24 hours per day have emerged (eg, Fitbit). The current study aims to determine people's current use, interest and preferences for advanced trackers. DESIGN AND
participantsA cross-sectional national telephone survey was conducted in Australia with 1349 respondents. OUTCOME MEASURES: Regression analyses were used to determine whether tracker interest and use, and use of advanced trackers over pedometers is a function of demographics. Preferences for tracker features and reasons for not wanting to wear a tracker are also presented.
resultsOver one-third of participants (35%) had used a tracker, and 16% are interested in using one. Multinomial regression (n=1257) revealed that the use of trackers was lower in males (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.65), non-working participants (OR=0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.61), participants with lower education (OR=0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72) and inactive participants (OR=0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70). Interest in using a tracker was higher in younger participants (OR=1.73, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.58). The most frequently used tracker was a pedometer (59%). Logistic regression (n=445) revealed that use of advanced trackers compared with pedometers was higher in males (OR=1.67, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.79) and younger participants (OR=2.96, 95% CI 1.71 to 5.13), and lower in inactive participants (OR=0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.63). Over half of current or interested tracker users (53%) prefer to wear it on their wrist, 31% considered counting steps the most important function and 30% regarded accuracy as the most important characteristic. The main reasons for not wanting to use a tracker were, 'I don't think it would help me' (39%), and 'I don't want to increase my activity' (47%).
conclusionsActivity trackers are a promising tool to engage people in self-monitoring a physical activity. Trackers used in physical activity interventions should align with the preferences of target groups, and should be able to be worn on the wrist, measure steps and be accurate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.