Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27881359›Full record

ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2016

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Using Wearable Activity Trackers in Youth: A Systematic Review.

Nicola D Ridgers, Melitta A McNarry, Kelly A Mackintosh

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
52.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

136 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 273 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicola D RidgersDeakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, .ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5713-3515
Melitta A McNarryApplied Sports Science Technology and Medicine Research Centre (A-STEM), College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0813-7477
Kelly A MackintoshApplied Sports Science Technology and Medicine Research Centre (A-STEM), College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0355-6357
Swansea University · GBDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe proliferation and popularity of wearable activity trackers (eg, Fitbit, Jawbone, Misfit) may present an opportunity to integrate such technology into physical activity interventions. While several systematic reviews have reported intervention effects of using wearable activity trackers on adults' physical activity levels, none to date have focused specifically on children and adolescents.

objectiveThe aim of this review was to examine the effectiveness of wearable activity trackers as a tool for increasing children's and adolescents' physical activity levels. We also examined the feasibility of using such technology in younger populations (age range 5-19 years).

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of 5 electronic databases, reference lists, and personal archives to identify articles published up until August 2016 that met the inclusion criteria. Articles were included if they (1) specifically examined the use of a wearable device within an intervention or a feasibility study; (2) included participants aged 5-19 years old; (3) had a measure of physical activity as an outcome variable for intervention studies; (4) reported process data concerning the feasibility of the device in feasibility studies; and (5) were published in English. Data were analyzed in August 2016.

resultsIn total, we identified and analyzed 5 studies (3 intervention, 2 feasibility). Intervention delivery ranged from 19 days to 3 months, with only 1 study using a randomized controlled trial design. Wearable activity trackers were typically combined with other intervention approaches such as goal setting and researcher feedback. While intervention effects were generally positive, the reported differences were largely nonsignificant. The feasibility studies indicated that monitor comfort and design and feedback features were important factors to children and adolescents.

conclusionsThere is a paucity of research concerning the effectiveness and feasibility of wearable activity trackers as a tool for increasing children's and adolescents' physical activity levels. While there are some preliminary data to suggest these devices may have the potential to increase activity levels through self-monitoring and goal setting in the short term, more research is needed to establish longer-term effects on behavior.

Indexed as

behaviour changeelectronic activity monitormHealthphysical activity

Identifiers

PMID27881359
PMCPMC5143467
OpenAlexW2554597153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.