Factors associated with validity of consumer-oriented wearable physical activity trackers: a meta-analysis

Are individuals with disabilities using wearable devices? A secondary data analysis of 2017 BRFSS

PURPOSE

The study aims to investigate the prevalence of individuals with disabilities who reported using wearable devices, to examine the association between wearable device usage and disability status, and to determine the characteristic of individuals with disabilities associated with wearable device usage using the 2017 Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) through secondary data analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from the 2017 BRFSS of eight states were used in the analysis. Descriptive analysis, chi-square analysis, and multivariable logistic regressions were performed. Subsample analyses were also conducted for individuals with disabilities and different types of disability, including visual impairments, hearing impairments, cognitive disability, independent living disability, self-care disability, and mobility disability on wearable device usage.

RESULTS

14.6% (95% CI [11.7, 17.5]) of participants with disabilities were wearable device users. Individuals with disabilities were .63 (95% CI [.48, .83], p < 0.001) and .67 (95% CI [.50, .90], p = 0.007) times the odds of individuals without disabilities in using wearable devices, respectively, according to unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression. Individuals with mobility disability were less likely to utilise wearable devices than their counterparts. Among individuals with disabilities, those who were age 65 years or older had a lower odds of using wearable devices (OR = .55, 95% CI [0.35, 0.85), p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Individuals with disabilities are using wearable devices in collecting various health-related information. Further research is needed to determine reasons why individuals with disabilities are not using wearable devices and how individuals with disabilities are using wearable devices.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONWearable devices can track various health-related information such as physical activity levels, sleep patterns, calories intakes, and chronic health conditions.Using nationally represent data, individuals with disabilities have access and utilise wearable devices in free living setting.Compare to individuals without disabilities, individuals with disabilities are less likely to utilise wearable devices in free living setting.Further research is needed to determine the accessibility of wearable devices for individuals with disabilities and its usage in rehabilitation setting.

A meta-analysis of Fitbit devices: same company, different models, different validity evidence

Fitbit devices are among the most commonly used physical activity devices used by the general public. Multiple studies have examined the validity evidence of Fitbit devices of estimating energy expenditure during physical activity compared to criterion references. However, the literature lacks objective, summary validity evidence that supports the use of various models of Fitbit devices. Therefore, this study aims (a) to examine the validity evidence among the various models of Fitbit devices and (b) to investigate the influence of several device factors on the validity evidence of Fitbit models using meta-analysis. A total of 402 articles were identified through five databases. Upon review of the articles, 29 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Seven different moderator variables, including Fitbit model, device placement, type of device, heart rate capability, release year of devices, activity types and sedentary activity, were identified and included in the meta-analysis to examine their impact on the validity evidence of Fitbit devices. The summarised validity coefficient of energy expenditure during physical activity estimated by Fitbit devices and measured by criterion references was r=.64 (k = 29, 95% CI [.59, .69], p<.001). Fitbit model was not found to be a significant factor impacting validity evidence of Fitbit devices, but heart rate capability, activity types and sedentary activity were found to be significant factors impacting validity evidence. This study found that not all Fitbit models have a similar ability in estimating energy expenditure during physical activity. Continued research is needed in examining the validity evidence of Fitbit devices, especially considering some factors may affect the validity evidence in measuring energy expenditure during physical activity.