ArticleJMIR aging2022
A Smartwatch Step-Counting App for Older Adults: Development and Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physical Activity in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Which Real-World Accelerometry Measures Are Robust? A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- The Value of Smartwatches in the Health Care Sector for Monitoring, Nudging, and Predicting: Viewpoint on 25 Years of Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Review
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
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults who engage in physical activity can reduce their risk of mobility impairment and disability. Short amounts of walking can improve quality of life, physical function, and cardiovascular health. Various programs have been implemented to encourage older adults to engage in physical activity, but sustaining their motivation continues to be a challenge. Ubiquitous devices, such as mobile phones and smartwatches, coupled with machine-learning algorithms, can potentially encourage older adults to be more physically active. Current algorithms that are deployed in consumer devices (eg, Fitbit) are proprietary, often are not tailored to the movements of older adults, and have been shown to be inaccurate in clinical settings. Step-counting algorithms have been developed for smartwatches, but only using data from younger adults and, often, were only validated in controlled laboratory settings.
objectiveWe sought to develop and validate a smartwatch step-counting app for older adults and evaluate the algorithm in free-living settings over a long period of time.
methodsWe developed and evaluated a step-counting app for older adults on an open-source wrist-worn device (Amulet). The app includes algorithms to infer the level of physical activity and to count steps. We validated the step-counting algorithm in the lab (counting steps from a video recording, n=20) and in free-living conditions-one 2-day field study (n=6) and two 12-week field studies (using the Fitbit as ground truth, n=16). During app system development, we evaluated 4 walking patterns: normal, fast, up and down a staircase, and intermittent speed. For the field studies, we evaluated 5 different cut-off values for the algorithm, using correlation and error rate as the evaluation metrics.
resultsThe step-counting algorithm performed well. In the lab study, for normal walking (R
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate the importance of an iterative process in algorithm development before field-based deployment. This work highlights various challenges and insights involved in developing and validating monitoring systems in real-world settings. Nonetheless, our step-counting app for older adults had good performance relative to the ground truth (a commercial Fitbit step counter). Our app could potentially be used to help improve physical activity among older adults.
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.