ArticlePeerJ2018
Perceived user preferences and usability evaluation of mainstream wearable devices for health monitoring.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Keeping Pace with Wearables: A Living Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Evaluating the Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Technologies in Health Measurement.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Pooled it
- The Use of Wearable Devices to Measure Sedentary Behavior during COVID-19: Systematic Review and Future Recommendations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- The Combined Effects of Sports Smart Bracelet and Multi-Component Exercise Program on Exercise Motivation among the Elderly in Macau.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Trial
- Evaluating Wearable Devices for Remote Monitoring in Psychosis: Pilot Study Nested Within the CONNECT Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Boosting Physical Activity Among Individuals With Low Engagement Through Double-Point Incentives in a Community-Based mHealth Intervention: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Observational
- Article
- Introducing a Remote Patient Monitoring Usability Impact Model to Overcome Challenges.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Objective Assessment of Physical Activity at Home Using a Novel Floor-Vibration Monitoring System: Validation and Comparison With Wearable Activity Trackers and Indirect Calorimetry Measurements.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Introducing the Pi-CON Methodology to Overcome Usability Deficits during Remote Patient Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comparison of raw accelerometry data from ActiGraph, Apple Watch, Garmin, and Fitbit using a mechanical shaker table.PloS one · 2024Article
- Wearable technologies for health research: Opportunities, limitations, and practical and conceptual considerations.Brain, behavior, and immunity · 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
- Mississippi church leaders' perceptions of challenges and barriers to the use of consumer wearables among community members.AIMS public health · 2023Article
- Initial Development of User-Based Quality Evaluation Questionnaire of Smartwatch Technology for Applying to Healthcare.Iranian journal of public health · 2023Article
- Defining a Continuous Glucose Baseline to assess the impact of nutritional interventions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Article
- Lessons from a multicenter clinical trial with an approved wearable electrocardiogram: issues and practical considerations.Translational and clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- The Impact of Wearable Technologies in Health Research: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- Research on User Experience of Sports Smart Bracelet Based on Fuzzy Comprehensive Appraisal and SSA-BP Neural Network.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- Technical validation of real-world monitoring of gait: a multicentric observational study.BMJ open · 2021Observational
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
backgroundThere are many problems with fitness trackers, such as device usability, which limit their large-scale application, and relevant studies are limited in terms of their sample size and evaluation methods. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the perceived usability of various mainstream fitness trackers on the market, and to learn about user feedback on feature preferences for each device.
methodsTrial use of seven mainstream fitness trackers (two smart watches and five smart wristbands) followed by a survey study were applied. The questionnaire was specifically developed for this study, which included two parts (user preferences and device usability in five dimensions). We recruited users to test the devices for at least 30 days and asked experienced users to provide feedback in order to evaluate each device, including the rating and user preference of each device.
resultsWe received 388 valid questionnaires, in which users rated their responses on a five-point Likert scale. (1) User preference: the average user satisfaction was 3.50-3.86 (points), and the rating for willingness to buy averaged between 3.36 and 3.59. More users were willing to wear (58.3-81.3%) and purchase (56.8-83.0%) the devices than were not. The top three general feature preferences were daily activity tracking, heart health monitoring, and professional fitness tracking. The top three health-related feature preferences were heart rate monitoring, daily pedometer, and professional fitness tracking. (2) Usability evaluation: product design was rated from 3.57 to 4.00; durability, 3.63-4.26; ease of use, 3.70-3.90; added features, 3.30-3.83; and user-rated accuracy, 3.44-3.78. A significant difference was observed in the rating of product design and durability among the different devices (
conclusionsUsers generally had positive subjective intent regarding fitness trackers but were less satisfied with their cost effectiveness. The users preferred health related features such as heart health monitoring, and professional fitness tracking. The rating of most of the current mainstream fitness trackers was fair with some significant differences among the devices. Thus, further improvement is needed.
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.