ArticleHealth promotion practice2019
Using Commercial Physical Activity Trackers for Health Promotion Research: Four Case Studies.
Article in Health promotion practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Usability, Acceptability, and Satisfaction of a Wearable Activity Tracker in Older Adults: Observational Study in a Real-Life Context in Northern Portugal.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Observational
- European Portuguese Version of the User Satisfaction Evaluation Questionnaire (USEQ): Transcultural Adaptation and Validation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWearable physical activity (PA) trackers are becoming increasingly popular for intervention and assessment in health promotion research and practice. The purpose of this article is to present lessons learned from four studies that used commercial PA tracking devices for PA intervention or assessment, present issues encountered with their use, and provide guidelines for determining which tools to use.
methodFour case studies are presented that used PA tracking devices (iBitz, Zamzee, FitBit Flex and Zip, Omron Digital Pedometer, Sensewear Armband, and MisFit Flash) in the field-two used the tools for intervention and two used the tools as assessment methods.
resultsThe four studies presented had varying levels of success with using PA devices and experienced several issues that impacted their studies, such as companies that went out of business, missing data, and lost devices. Percentage ranges for devices that were lost were 0% to 29% and was 0% to 87% for those devices that malfunctioned or lost data.
conclusionsThere is a need for low-cost, easy-to-use, accurate PA tracking devices to use as both intervention and assessment tools in health promotion research related to PA.
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.