Use of Fitbit Devices in Physical Activity Intervention Studies Across the Life Course: Narrative Review

Abstract

Background Commercial off-the-shelf activity trackers (eg, Fitbit) allow users to self-monitor their daily physical activity (PA), including the number of steps, type of PA, amount of sleep, and other features. Fitbits have been used as both measurement and intervention tools. However, it is not clear how they are being incorporated into PA intervention studies, and their use in specific age groups across the life course is not well understood. Objective This narrative review aims to characterize how PA intervention studies across the life course use Fitbit devices by synthesizing and summarizing information on device selection, intended use (intervention vs measurement tool), participant wear instructions, rates of adherence to device wear, strategies used to boost adherence, and the complementary use of other PA measures. This review provides intervention scientists with a synthesis of information that may inform future trials involving Fitbit devices. Methods We conducted a search of the Fitabase Fitbit Research Library, a database of studies published between 2012 and 2018. Of the 682 studies available on the Fitabase research library, 60 interventions met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. A supplemental search in PubMed resulted in the inclusion of 15 additional articles published between 2019 and 2020. A total of 75 articles were reviewed, which represented interventions conducted in childhood; adolescence; and early, middle, and older adulthood. Results There was considerable heterogeneity in the use of Fitbit within and between developmental stages. Interventions for adults typically required longer wear periods, whereas studies on children and adolescents tended to have more limited device wear periods. Most studies used developmentally appropriate behavior change techniques and device wear instructions. Regardless of the developmental stage and intended Fitbit use (ie, measurement vs intervention tool), the most common strategies used to enhance wear time included sending participants reminders through texts or emails and asking participants to log their steps or synchronize their Fitbit data daily. The rates of adherence to the wear time criteria were reported using varying metrics. Most studies supplemented the use of Fitbit with additional objective or self-reported measures for PA. Conclusions Overall, the heterogeneity in Fitbit use across PA intervention studies reflects its relative novelty in the field of research. As the use of monitoring devices continues to expand in PA research, the lack of uniformity in study protocols and metrics of reported measures represents a major issue for comparability purposes. There is a need for increased transparency in the prospective registration of PA intervention studies. Researchers need to provide a clear rationale for the use of several PA measures and specify the source of their main PA outcome and how additional measures will be used in the context of Fitbit-based interventions.

Wearable Use in an Observational Study Among Older Adults: Adherence, Feasibility, and Effects of Clinicodemographic Factors

“…Our findings showing high adherence rates for daily wearable use are generally consistent with previous studies in older adults, which have reported daily wearable use on as many as 98% of study days on average (34). Interestingly, we also found that female sex was associated with higher adherence to wearing the device daily.…”

Decreased Physical Activity Among Youth Resulting From COVID-19 Pandemic–Related School Closures: Natural Experimental Study

“…Approaches vary by device manufacturer (eg, Garmin Ltd vs Fitbit LLC) and device model (eg, heart rate is sometimes used but is not measured by the Vivofit 4). Although the most common approaches have been to include all days regardless of wear time (ie, no detection of nonwear) and define valid days based on a minimum step count threshold [ 14 ], we used a more rigorous approach in this study, similar to what has been used in some Fitbit-based research [ 15 ]. Groups of ≥3 epochs (15 minutes each) with a value of 0 for maximum motion intensity were considered nonwear time.…”

Development of a data platform for monitoring personal health records in Japan: The Sustaining Health by Integrating Next-generation Ecosystems (SHINE) Study

“…However, such prospective cohort studies generally incur high follow-up costs, are susceptible to participant dropouts, and have limited health-related items for assessments. As a result, studies tend to assess the associations between physical activity levels and current health statuses [ 7 – 9 ]. Although recent studies have developed digital health platforms that enable the longitudinal acquisition of PHRs on smartphones and other devices, these have mostly relied on self-reported results and the measurements do not support integration with other data types from health care providers [ 10 – 13 ].…”