ArticleBMJ open2022
How is the usability of commercial activity monitors perceived by older adults and by researchers? A cross-sectional evaluation of community-living individuals.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Wearable Devices for Remote Monitoring in Psychosis: Pilot Study Nested Within the CONNECT Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Article
- Human Factors, Human-Centered Design, and Usability of Sensor-Based Digital Health Technologies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Experiences, acceptability and feasibility of an isometric exercise intervention for stage 1 hypertension: embedded qualitative study in a randomised controlled feasibility trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- Putting the usability of wearable technology in forensic psychiatry to the test: a randomized crossover trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesUsing commercial activity monitors may advance research with older adults. However, usability for the older population is not sufficiently established. This study aims at evaluating the usability of three wrist-worn monitors for older adults. In addition, we report on usability (including data management) for research.
designData were collected cross-sectionally. Between-person of three activity monitor type (Apple Watch 3, Fitbit Charge 4, Polar A370) were made.
settingThe activity monitors were worn in normal daily life in an urban community in Germany. The period of wear was 2 weeks.
participantsUsing convenience sampling, we recruited N=27 healthy older adults (≥60 years old) who were not already habitual users of activity monitors. OUTCOMES: To evaluate usability from the participant perspective, we used the System Usability Scale (SUS) as well as a study-specific qualitative checklist. Assessment further comprised age, highest academic degree, computer proficiency and affinity for technology interaction. Usability from the researchers' perspective was assessed using quantitative data management markers and a study-specific qualitative check-list.
resultsThere was no significant difference between monitors in the SUS. Female gender was associated with higher SUS usability ratings. Qualitative participant-usability reports revealed distinctive shortcomings, for example, in terms of battery life and display readability. Usability for researchers came with problems in data management, such as completeness of the data download.
conclusionThe usability of the monitors compared in this work differed qualitatively. Yet, the overall usability ratings by participants were comparable. Conversely, from the researchers' perspective, there were crucial differences in data management and usability that should be considered when making monitor choices for future studies.
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.