Monitoring Occupational Sitting, Standing, and Stepping in Office Employees With the W@W-App and the MetaWearC Sensor: Validation Study

Bort-Roig, Judit; Chirveches-Pérez, Emilia; Cuyàs, Francesc García; Dowd, Kieran P.; Puig‐Ribera, Anna

doi:10.2196/15338

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, the high rate of participants' dropouts, mainly due to battery issues with the app, limited the results of the current study. Alternatively, ongoing research is exploring the integration of a low-cost commercially available sensor (MetaWearC; MbientLab Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) to the W@W-App that is more battery friendly [32]. Fourth, the W@W-App was based on the usability study from a previous version of the W@W-App [21], but did not examine how usable participants found the W@W-App.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An mHealth Workplace-Based “Sit Less, Move More” Program: Impact on Employees’ Sedentary and Physical Activity Patterns at Work and Away from Work

Bort-Roig

Chirveches-Pérez

Giné-Garriga

et al. 2020

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Most workplace interventions that aim to reduce sedentary behaviour have 38 focused on employees’ sedentary patterns at-work but less have focused on understanding the 39 impact beyond working time. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a 13-week m-40 health workplace-based ‘sit less, move more’ intervention (Walk@WorkApp; W@W-App) on 41 physical activity (PA) and sitting in desk-based employees at-work and away from work. Methods: Participants (n = 141) were assigned by hospital to an intervention group (IG; used the W@W-App; n = 90) or an active comparison group (A-CG; monitored occupational activity; n = 51). The W@W-App, installed on the participants´ own smartphones, provided real-time feedback for occupational sitting, standing, and stepping, and gave access to automated strategies to sit less and move more at work. Changes between groups were assessed for total sitting time, sedentary bouts and breaks, and light and moderate-to-vigorous PA (activPAL3TM; min/day) between the baseline and after program completion. Results: Compared to the A-CG, employees that used the W@W-App program increased their number of daily breaks and the time spent on short sedentary bouts (<20 min, p = 0.047) during weekends. Changes in shortest sedentary bouts (5–10 min) during weekends were also statistically significant (p < 0.05). No changes in workday PA or sitting were observed. Conclusion: Desk-based employees seemed to transfer the W@W-App program knowledge outside of work. Evaluating the impact of workplace (mHealth-based or not) interventions at work but also away from work would provide a better understating of the impact of such interventions.

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An mHealth Workplace-Based “Sit Less, Move More” Program: Impact on Employees’ Sedentary and Physical Activity Patterns at Work and Away from Work

Bort-Roig

Chirveches-Pérez

Giné-Garriga

et al. 2020

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Implications and Recommendations for Equivalence Testing in Measures of Movement Behaviors: A Scoping Review

O’Brien

2021

Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Equivalence testing may provide complementary information to more frequently used statistical procedures because it determines whether physical behavior outcomes are statistically equivalent to criterion measures. A caveat of this procedure is the predetermined selection of upper and lower bounds of acceptable error around a specified zone of equivalence. With no clear guidelines available to assist researchers, these equivalence zones are arbitrarily selected. A scoping review of articles implementing equivalence testing was performed to determine the validity of physical behavior outcomes; the aim was to characterize how this procedure has been implemented and to provide recommendations. A literature search from five databases initially identified potentially 1,153 articles which resulted in the acceptance of 19 studies (20 arms) conducted in children/youth and 40 in adults (49 arms). Most studies were conducted in free-living conditions (children/youth = 13 arms; adults = 22 arms) and employed a ±10% equivalence zone. However, equivalence zones ranged from ±3% to ±25% with only a subset using absolute thresholds (e.g., ±1,000 steps/day). If these equivalence zones were increased or decreased by ±5%, 75% (15/20, children/youth) and 71% (35/49, adults), they would have exhibited opposing equivalence test outcomes (i.e., equivalent to nonequivalent or vice versa). This scoping review identifies the heterogeneous usage of equivalence testing in studies examining the accuracy of (in)activity measures. In the absence of evidence-based standardized equivalence criteria, presenting the percentage required to achieve statistical equivalence or using absolute thresholds as a proportion of the SD may be a better practice than arbitrarily selecting zones a priori.

show abstract

Validation of Smartphones and Different Low-Cost Activity Trackers for Step Counting Under Free-Living Conditions

Goh

Wang

Müller

et al. 2023

Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Smartphones and wrist-worn activity trackers are increasingly popular for step counting purposes and physical activity promotion. Although trackers from popular brands have frequently been validated, the accuracy of low-cost devices under free-living conditions has not been adequately determined. Objective: To investigate the criterion validity of smartphones and low-cost wrist-worn activity trackers under free-living conditions. Methods: Participants wore a waist-worn Yamax pedometer and seven different low-cost wrist-worn activity trackers continuously over 3 days, and an activity log was completed at the end of each day. At the end of the study, the number of step counts reflected on the participants’ smartphone for each of the 3 days was also recorded. To establish criterion validity, step counts from smartphones and activity trackers were compared with the pedometers using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, mean absolute percentage error, and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Five of the seven activity trackers underestimated step counts and the remaining two and the smartphones overestimated step counts. Criterion validity was consistently higher for the activity trackers (r = .78–.92; mean absolute percentage error 14.5%–36.1%; intraclass correlation coefficient: .51–.91) than the smartphone (r = .37; mean absolute percentage error 55.7%; intraclass correlation coefficient: .36). Stratified analysis showed better validity of smartphones among female than for male participants. Phone wearing location also affected accuracy. Conclusions: Low-cost trackers demonstrated high accuracy in recording step counts and can be considered with confidence for research purposes or large-scale health promotion programs. The accuracy of using a smartphone for measuring step counts was substantially lower. Factors such as phone wear location and gender should also be considered when using smartphones to track step counts.

show abstract

Monitoring Occupational Sitting, Standing, and Stepping in Office Employees With the W@W-App and the MetaWearC Sensor: Validation Study

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

An mHealth Workplace-Based “Sit Less, Move More” Program: Impact on Employees’ Sedentary and Physical Activity Patterns at Work and Away from Work

An mHealth Workplace-Based “Sit Less, Move More” Program: Impact on Employees’ Sedentary and Physical Activity Patterns at Work and Away from Work

Implications and Recommendations for Equivalence Testing in Measures of Movement Behaviors: A Scoping Review

Validation of Smartphones and Different Low-Cost Activity Trackers for Step Counting Under Free-Living Conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About