Comparison of Physical Activity Measures Derived From the Fitbit Flex and the ActiGraph GT3X+ in an Employee Population With Chronic Knee Symptoms

Abstract

Objective. We examined the accuracy of data from an affordable personal monitor (Fitbit Flex) compared with that of data from a research-grade accelerometer worn simultaneously for 7 days; high accuracy would support substitution with this less-expensive personal activity monitor in future community-based arthritis research.Methods. Subjects (N = 35) with chronic knee symptoms were recruited for a pilot intervention study using Fitbits to increase physical activity in employees with chronic knee symptoms at an urban corporation. Subjects simultaneously wore for 7 days a Fitbit Flex (wrist-worn) and ActiGraph GT3X+ (waist-worn). Fitbit Flex data were regularly stored on a research storage service (Fitabase) by participants. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to examine the agreement between the mean daily times spent in light activity and in bouted moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Comparisons were calculated by matching Fitabase data from calendar days the Fitbit was worn with data from valid monitoring days (greater than or equal to 10 hours wear time) of the ActiGraph.Results. Participants at baseline were mostly female (69%) and white (57%) and had a mean age of 52 years and body mass index of 32 kg/m 2 . Bland-Altman analyses indicated systematic bias overall (the Fitbit overestimated both light-intensity activity and MVPA compared with the ActiGraph). The average error varied in magnitude and direction with changing activity amounts.Conclusion. The Fitbit Flex does not appear to be an adequate substitute for research-grade accelerometry (which represents the gold standard for objective research monitoring of all physical activity intensity levels) in this population of persons with chronic knee symptoms.

Physical activity, Sedentary Behaviour and Their Correlates in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: a Systematic Review

“…This makes the interpretation of sedentary behaviour estimates difficult and may have skewed results. Wearable activity trackers may be useful in studies wanting to objectively measure time spent in autistic adults' physical activity and sedentary behaviour, due to their lower cost, accessibility, and low burden of wear (Semanik et al, 2020). Wearable activity trackers were used in three studies.…”

The Use of Inertial Measurement Units for the Study of Free Living Environment Activity Assessment: A Literature Review

“…Alongside the smartphone, other inertial sensors for consumer use are on the market (Fitbit) and allow activity detection. The comparison of these sensors with sensors used in the research community shows a good capability of consumer sensors for activity detection [ 116 ], but still less accurate than IMUs used in the research field which does not make it an adequate substitute for FLEs studies [ 117 ]. Furthermore, the lack of transparency and the difference in the algorithm used for step and activity detection with those sensors is a hindrance to the use of these sensors in the research community.…”

The Associations of COVID-19 Lockdown Restrictions With Longer-Term Activity Levels of Working Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: Cohort Study

“…A proprietary algorithm converts the raw acceleration signal from the tracker into step counts and activity intensity. Each minute interval is categorized as sedentary (<1.5 metabolic equivalent tasks [METs] according to Fitbit), lightly active (1.5-3 METs), fairly active (3-6 METs), or very active (>6 METs or ≥145 steps/min in at least 10 min bouts) according to Fitbit’s determination of METs [ 30 ]. Data were collected continuously by the wrist-worn tracker for 30 days, at which point the device must be synchronized via Bluetooth with a smartphone and the Fitbit app.…”