Kids’Cam: An Objective Methodology to Study the World in Which Children Live

Abstract

This methodology enabled objective analysis of the world in which children live. The main arm examined the frequency and nature of children's exposure to food and beverage marketing and provided data on difficult to measure settings. The methodology will likely generate robust evidence facilitating more effective policymaking to address numerous public health concerns.

Usefulness of Wearable Cameras as a Tool to Enhance Chronic Disease Self-Management: Scoping Review (Preprint)

“…The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States of America (n = 7, 29%) [22,25,27,29,31,32,36], the United Kingdom (n = 6, 25%) [9][10][11][12][13][14], and Ireland (n = 4, 13%) [24,30,33,35]. Three studies [23,26,28] were international multicentre studies, while the remaining studies were from New Zealand [8,20,34] and Spain [37].…”

“…Studies including data analysis were predominantly feasibility or pilot studies (n = 13, 54%) [9][10][11]16,20,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29], followed by validation studies (n = 4, 17%) [8,28,30,31] and methodological studies (n = 5, 21%) [32][33][34][35][36]. There was one randomised controlled trial [37] conducted with acquired brain injury patients where camera images formed part of a health intervention.…”

“…Eight had between 20 -50 participants [8,9,13,20,24,[29][30][31][32][33]36,37] and only three studies (13%) [26][27][28] had more than 50 participants (maximum = 84). Participants were predominantly healthy adults (n= 15, 65%) [8,[10][11][12][13]20,22,23,[25][26][27][28]33,35,36], with some studies including athletes (n = 4, 17%) [24,[29][30][31] and school children (n = 2, 9%) [9,34]. One study used a sample of older women to examine physical activity and sedentary time [32].…”

“…In 21 studies (81%) participants wore a camera for between three to seven days; in one study, participants wore the cameras for seven weeks [37]. Studies classified as primary or secondary data analyses used wearable cameras to measure, observe or validate specific behaviours related to dietary intake (n = 10, 38%) [8][9][10][11]20,[22][23][24][25]39], physical activity (n =5, 17%) [26,27,30,32,40], a diverse range of daily activities such as travel, work and exposure to food marketing (n = 5, 17%) [12,[33][34][35]37], sedentary behaviour (n = 4, 15%) [13,29,31,36] and travel behaviours such as walking, cycling or motorised transport (n = 2, 8%) [14,28].…”

“…Studies classified as validation [8,28,30,31] compared the validity of wearable cameras either against, or in combination with other measurement approaches, including self-reported diaries, questionnaires, as well as objective measurement techniques such as accelerometers and doubly labelled water. For the methodological papers [32][33][34][35][36], outcomes focused on testing software or analytic approaches to classify and analyse generated images.…”