ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018
Usability Study of Mainstream Wearable Fitness Devices: Feature Analysis and System Usability Scale Evaluation.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 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
52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Sensing Technologies for Wearable Sleep Staging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Pooled it
- Wearable Health Devices in Health Care: Narrative Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- A Series of Personalized Melatonin Supplement Interventions for Poor Sleep: Feasibility Randomized Crossover Trial for Personalized N-of-1 Treatment.JMIR formative research · 2025Trial
- Technology-enhanced in vivo exposures in Prolonged Exposure for PTSD: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Journal of psychiatric research · 2022Trial
- Mobile Health Apps in Pediatric Obesity Treatment: Process Outcomes From a Feasibility Study of a Multicomponent Intervention.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Trial
- Perception-Adoption Gap of an AI Dietary Management App in Real-World Dining Settings: A Field Study.Nutrients · 2026Observational
- Usability and stability of longitudinal at-home sleep evaluation using the Waveband electroencephalogram headband in an insomnia population.Sleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society · 2026Article
- Continuous biosignal acquisition beyond the limit of epidermal turnover.Materials horizons · 2025Review
- 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
- Prolonged periods of shallow sleep are associated with diabetic carotid atherosclerosis.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Stress in action wearables database: A database of noninvasive wearable monitors with systematic technical, reliability, validity, and usability information.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Measuring lung mechanics in patients with COPD using the handheld portable rapid expiratory occlusion monitor (REOM): A cross-sectional study.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- A Mixed Reality-Based Telesupervised Ultrasound Education Platform on 5G Network Compared to Direct Supervision: Prospective Randomized Pilot Trial.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
- Strategic technological innovation through ChatMu: transforming information accessibility in Muhammadiyah.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Perspectives of people with diabetes on AI-integrated wearable devices: perceived benefits, barriers, and opportunities for self-management.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A practical guide for selecting continuous monitoring wearable devices for community-dwelling adults.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Using a Smartwatch App to Understand Young Adult Substance Use: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Attributes, Methods, and Frameworks Used to Evaluate Wearables and Their Companion mHealth Apps: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- Wearable Technology to Capture Arm Use of People With Stroke in Home and Community Settings: Feasibility and Early Insights on Motor Performance.Physical therapy · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWearable devices have the potential to promote a healthy lifestyle because of their real-time data monitoring capabilities. However, device usability is a critical factor that determines whether they will be adopted on a large scale. Usability studies on wearable devices are still scarce.
objectiveThis study aims to compare the functions and attributes of seven mainstream wearable devices and to evaluate their usability.
methodsThe wearable devices selected were the Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S, Fitbit Surge, Jawbone Up3, Mi Band, Huawei Honor B2, and Misfit Shine. A mixed method of feature comparison and a System Usability Scale (SUS) evaluation based on 388 participants was applied; the higher the SUS score, the better the usability of the product.
resultsFor features, all devices had step counting, an activity timer, and distance recording functions. The Samsung Gear S had a unique sports track recording feature and the Huawei Honor B2 had a unique wireless earphone. The Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S, Jawbone Up3, and Fitbit Surge could measure heart rate. All the devices were able to monitor sleep, except the Apple Watch. For product characteristics, including attributes such as weight, battery life, price, and 22 functions such as step counting, activity time, activity type identification, sleep monitoring, and expandable new features, we found a very weak negative correlation between the SUS scores and price (r=-.10, P=.03) and devices that support expandable new features (r=-.11, P=.02), and a very weak positive correlation between the SUS scores and devices that support the activity type identification function (r=.11, P=.02). The Huawei Honor B2 received the highest score of mean 67.6 (SD 16.1); the lowest Apple Watch score was only 61.4 (SD 14.7). No significant difference was observed among brands. The SUS score had a moderate positive correlation with the user's experience (length of time the device was used) (r=.32, P<.001); participants in the medical and health care industries gave a significantly higher score (mean 61.1, SD 17.9 vs mean 68.7, SD 14.5, P=.03).
conclusionsThe functions of wearable devices tend to be homogeneous and usability is similar across various brands. Overall, Mi Band had the lowest price and the lightest weight. Misfit Shine had the longest battery life and most functions, and participants in the medical and health care industries had the best evaluation of wearable devices. The perceived usability of mainstream wearable devices is unsatisfactory and customer loyalty is not high. A consumer's SUS rating for a wearable device is related to their personal situation instead of the device brand. Device manufacturers should put more effort into developing innovative functions and improving the usability of their products by integrating more cognitive behavior change techniques.
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.