Author(s):

  • Maher, Carol
  • Ryan, Jillian
  • Ambrosi, Christina
  • Edney, Sarah

Abstract:

Background: Wearable activity trackers offer considerable promise for helping users to adopt healthier lifestyles. This study aimed to explore users’ experience of activity trackers, including usage patterns, sharing of data to social media, perceived behaviour change (physical activity, diet and sleep), and technical issues/barriers to use.

Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was developed and administered to Australian adults who were current or former activity tracker users. Results were analysed descriptively, with differences between current and former users and wearable brands explored using independent samples t-tests, Mann-Whitney, and chi square tests.

Results: Participants included 200 current and 37 former activity tracker users (total N = 237) with a mean age of 33.1 years (SD 12.4, range 18-74 years). Fitbit (67.5%) and Garmin devices (16.5%) were most commonly reported. Participants typically used their trackers for sustained periods (5-7 months) and most intended to continue usage. Participants reported they had improved their physical activity (51-81%) more commonly than they had their diet (14-40%) or sleep (11-24%), and slightly more participants reported to value the real time feedback (89%) compared to the long-term monitoring (78%). Most users (70%) reported they had experienced functionality issues with their devices, most commonly related to battery life and technical difficulties.

Conclusions: Results suggest users find activity trackers appealing and useful tools for increasing perceived physical activity levels over a sustained period.

Document:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-017-4888-1#Sec13

References:
  1. Lee I-M, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN, Katzmarzyk PT, Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–29. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar
  2. Waxman A. Why a global strategy on diet, physical activity and health? In: Simopoulos A, editor. Nutrition and Fitness: Mental Health, Aging, and the Implementation of a Healthy Diet and Physical Activity Lifestyle. Volume 95, edn. Washington DC: Karger Publishers; 2005. p. 162–6.Google Scholar 
  3. Spiegel K, Tasali E, Leproult R, Van Cauter E. Effects of poor and short sleep on glucose metabolism and obesity risk. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2009;5(5):253–61. CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
  4. Meerlo P, Sgoifo A, Suchecki D. Restricted and disrupted sleep: effects on autonomic function, neuroendocrine stress systems and stress responsivity. Sleep Med Rev. 2008;12(3):197–210.Article  PubMed  Google Scholar
  5. Number of Fitbit devices sold worldwide from 2010 to 2015 [https://www.statista.com/statistics/472591/fitbit-devices-sold/]. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  6. Healthcare wearable device sales revenue worldwide from 2015 to 2021 (in million U.S. dollars) [https://www.statista.com/statistics/610433/wearable-healthcare-device-revenue-worldwide/]. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  7. Ferguson T, Rowlands AV, Olds T, Maher C. The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12(1):42.Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
  8. Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12(1):159. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
  9. Ferguson T. Can consumer-level, body-worn accelerometers accurately measure physical activity in healthy adults in free-living conditions, and how easy are they to use? Honours thesis. Adelaide: University of South Australia; 2014. Google Scholar 
  10. Fritz T, Huang EM, Murphy GC, Zimmermann T. Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. In: CHI ’14 proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: April 26–may 01, 2014; Toronto. Ontario: ACM; 2014. p. 487–96. Google Scholar 
  11. Alley S, Schoeppe S, Guertler D, Jennings C, Duncan MJ, Vandelanotte C. Interest and preferences for using advanced physical activity tracking devices: results of a national cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e011243.Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
  12. Karapanos E, Gouveia R, Hassenzahl M, Forlizzi J. Wellbeing in the making: peoples’ experiences with wearable activity trackers. Psychol Well Being. 2016;6(1):4.Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
  13. Chang C-SR LH-P, Yang P, Luarn P. Reciprocal reinforcement between wearable activity trackers and social network services in influencing physical activity behaviors. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4(3):e84.Article  Google Scholar 
  14. Shih P, Han K, Poole E, Rosson M, Carroll J: Use and adoption challenges of wearable activity trackers. In: iConference 2015: March 24–27 2015; Newport Beach, CA; 2015.
  15. Newman MW, Lauterbach D, Munson SA, Resnick P, Morris ME. It’s not that I don’t have problems, i’m just not putting them on Facebook: challenges and opportunities in using online social networks for health. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work: 2011; Hangzhou. China: ACM; 2011. p. 341–50. Google Scholar 
  16. Guertler D, Vandelanotte C, Kirwan M, Duncan MJ. Engagement and nonusage attrition with a free physical activity promotion program: the case of 10,000 steps Australia. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(7):e176.

The SELF Institute