Researchers have studied how people use self-tracking technologies and discovered a long list of barriers including lack of time and motivation as well as difficulty in data integration and interpretation. Despite the barriers, an increasing number of Quantified-Selfers diligently track many kinds of data about themselves, and some of them share their best practices and mistakes through Meetup talks, blogging, and conferences. In this work, we aim to gain insights from these "extreme users," who have used existing technologies and built their own workarounds to overcome different barriers. We conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of 52 video recordings of Quantified Self Meetup talks to understand what they did, how they did it, and what they learned. We highlight several common pitfalls to self-tracking, including tracking too many things, not tracking triggers and context, and insufficient scientific rigor. We identify future research efforts that could help make progress toward addressing these pitfalls. We also discuss how our findings can have broad implications in designing and developing self-tracking technologies.

Background There is a dual need for (1) innovative theory-based smartphone applications for smoking cessation and (2) controlled trials to evaluate their efficacy. Accordingly, this study tested the feasibility, acceptability, preliminary efficacy, and mechanism of behavioral change of an innovative smartphone-delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) application for smoking cessation versus an application following US Clinical Practice Guidelines. Method Adult participants were recruited nationally into the double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial (N = 196) that compared smartphone-delivered ACT for smoking cessation application (SmartQuit) with the National Cancer Institute's application for smoking cessation (QuitGuide). Results We recruited 196 participants in two months. SmartQuit participants opened their application an average of 37.2 times, as compared to 15.2 times for QuitGuide participants (p <.0001). The overall quit rates were 13% in SmartQuit vs. 8% in QuitGuide (OR=2.7; 95% CI=0.8-10.3). Consistent with ACT's theory of change, among those scoring low (below the median) on acceptance of cravings at baseline (n = 88), the quit rates were 15% in SmartQuit vs. 8% in QuitGuide (OR=2.9; 95% CI=0.6-20.7). Conclusions ACT is feasible to deliver by smartphone application and shows higher engagement and promising quit rates compared to an application that follows US Clinical Practice Guidelines. As results were limited by the pilot design (e.g., small sample), a full-scale efficacy trial is now needed.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To review sleep related consumer technologies, including mobile electronic device "apps," wearable devices, and other technologies. Validation and methodological transparency, the effect on clinical sleep medicine, and various social, legal, and ethical issues are discussed. C onsumer sleep technologies (CSTs) are increasingly popular computer-based systems available to the general public for the purpose of improving or self-monitoring sleep. Their primary goals include sleep induction, wake induction, selfguided sleep assessment, entertainment, social connection, information sharing, and sleep education. There is scant literature discussing these technologies.1,2 Despite a paucity of clinical validation with traditional sleep technologies (e.g., polysomnography (PSG), multiple sleep latency testing (MSLT), and clinical-grade actigraphy), CSTs are here to stay because of their innovative nature, convenience, and affordability.Although adoption rates are not available, sleep-tracking products such as Fitbit and Jawbone are top sellers in consumer health products.3,4 The highest-funded health device on Kickstarter was a sleep monitor, which garnered more than $2.4 million in fi nancial backing. 5 A recent search for "sleep" in the Apple iTunes app store returned over 500 different sleep related applications, or "apps," available for download 6 ; similar searches on Android and Microsoft's app stores return hundreds of results. 7,8 Certain apps boast more than fi ve million downloads; one of the top fi ve paid apps in 2014 on iTunes was a sleep tracker and alarm clock. 9 We use the metaphor "over-the-counter" to describe these CSTs, because they are mostly available without a prescription or clinical guidance. Clinical sleep specialists should be aware of these increasingly popular technologies, as patients may request interpretation of derived data. This paper aims to provide a general overview of CSTs and their potential social, ethical, legal, and clinical effect. Although rapid development of these technologies obviates an exhaustive review, we outline some of the more popular, illustrative, or innovative technologies to give sleep specialists an idea of the recent landscape. Consumer Sleep Technologies: A Review of the Landscape METHODSWe searched PubMed and the digital libraries of the Association for Computing Machinery and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (where technology developers publish peer-reviewed articles), with search terms including "sleep technology," "sleep app," and "sleep monitoring." We eliminated articles that were not relevant to sleep (e.g., applications for controlling a computer's hibernation mode). We ran similar searches on Google, specifi cally focusing on consumer technology-related websites such as MIT Technology Review, 10