Technology Adoption, Motivational Aspects, and Privacy Concerns of Wearables in the German Running Community: Field Study

Abstract

BackgroundDespite the availability of a great variety of consumer-oriented wearable devices, perceived usefulness, user satisfaction, and privacy concerns have not been fully investigated in the field of wearable applications. It is not clear why healthy, active citizens equip themselves with wearable technology for running activities, and what privacy and data sharing features might influence their individual decisions.ObjectiveThe primary aim of the study was to shed light on motivational and privacy aspects of wearable technology used by healthy, active citizens. A secondary aim was to reevaluate smart technology adoption within the running community in Germany in 2017 and to compare it with the results of other studies and our own study from 2016.MethodsA questionnaire was designed to assess what wearable technology is used by runners of different ages and sex. Data on motivational factors were also collected. The survey was conducted at a regional road race event in May 2017, paperless via a self-implemented app. The demographic parameters of the sample cohort were compared with the event’s official starter list. In addition, the validation included comparison with demographic parameters of the largest German running events in Berlin, Hamburg, and Frankfurt/Main. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate whether age, sex, or course distance were associated with device use. The same method was applied to analyze whether a runner’s age was predictive of privacy concerns, openness to voluntary data sharing, and level of trust in one’s own body for runners not using wearables (ie, technological assistance considered unnecessary in this group).ResultsA total of 845 questionnaires were collected. Use of technology for activity monitoring during events or training was prevalent (73.0%, 617/845) in this group. Male long-distance runners and runners in younger age groups (30-39 years: odds ratio [OR] 2.357, 95% CI 1.378-4.115; 40-49 years: OR 1.485, 95% CI 0.920-2.403) were more likely to use tracking devices, with ages 16 to 29 years as the reference group (OR 1). Where wearable technology was used, 42.0% (259/617) stated that they were not concerned if data might be shared by a device vendor without their consent. By contrast, 35.0% (216/617) of the participants would not accept this. In the case of voluntary sharing, runners preferred to exchange tracked data with friends (51.7%, 319/617), family members (43.4%, 268/617), or a physician (32.3%, 199/617). A large proportion (68.0%, 155/228) of runners not using technology stated that they preferred to trust what their own body was telling them rather than trust a device or an app (50-59 years: P<.001; 60-69 years: P=.008).ConclusionsA total of 136 distinct devices by 23 vendors or manufacturers and 17 running apps were identified. Out of 4, 3 runners (76.8%, 474/617) always trusted in the data tracked by their personal device. Data privacy concerns do, however, exist in the German running community, especially for older age groups (30-39 years: OR ...

Willingness to adopt wearable devices with behavioral and economic incentives by health insurance wellness programs: results of a US cross-sectional survey with multiple consumer health vignettes

“…Previous studies have explained that health insurance companies could adjust their product strategies to motivate individuals to use wearable devices (2,3,15,4,(7)(8)(9)(11)(12)(13)(14) and even evaluated if consumers were interested to use a wearable device and share the data with their health or life insurance company in return for financial rewards for healthy behaviors (16,17). Other studies have examined the adoption of wearable devices as a whole (25) or by certain groups such as the elderly (26,27), runners (11) or health professionals (28); and found out that individuals follow a risk-benefit analysis too decide to adopt healthcare wearable devices (29).…”

“…Previous studies have explained that health insurance companies could adjust their product strategies to motivate individuals to use wearable devices (2)(3)(4)(7)(8)(9)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) and even evaluated if consumers were interested to use a wearable device and share the data with their health or life insurance company in return for financial rewards for healthy behaviors (16,17). However, little is known about the willingness to adopt health insurance wellness programs based on wearable devices, particularly those including use cases beyond health promotion.…”

Willingness to adopt wearable devices with behavioral and economic incentives by health insurance wellness programs: results of a US cross-sectional survey with multiple consumer health vignettes

“…Previous studies have explained that health insurance companies could adjust their product strategies to motivate individuals to use wearable devices (2,3,15,4,(7)(8)(9)(11)(12)(13)(14) and even evaluated if consumers were interested to use a wearable device and share the data with their health or life insurance company in return for financial rewards for healthy behaviors (16,17). Other studies have examined the adoption of wearable devices as a whole (25) or by certain groups such as the elderly (26,27), runners (15) or health professionals (28); and found out that individuals follow a risk-benefit analysis too decide to adopt healthcare wearable devices (29).…”

“…Previous studies have explained that health insurance companies could adjust their product strategies to motivate individuals to use wearable devices (2,3,15,4,(7)(8)(9)(11)(12)(13)(14) and even evaluated if 4 consumers were interested to use a wearable device and share the data with their health or life insurance company in return for financial rewards for healthy behaviors (16,17). However, little is known about the willingness to adopt health insurance wellness programs based on wearable devices, particularly those including use cases beyond health promotion.…”

Using a 360° camera as a mobile data collection method towards understanding information types and use in running

“…Running is an information rich environment often combining embodied information (Allen Collinson, 2008;Cox, Griffin, & Hartel, 2017) and quantified information usually created by mobile technology (Kuru, 2016;Lupton, 2016;Wiesner, Zowalla, Suledar, Westers, & Pobiruchin, 2018) used over the runner's career (Stebbins, 2018). Following a meta-ethnographic literature synthesis (Noblit & Hare, 1988) of embodied information, leisure social worlds, and the quantified-self, preliminary research questions were asked of which the following is relevant to this paper:…”