Abstract

Background: Objectively tracking sedentary behavior (SB) and physical activity (PA) is becoming increasingly important as research continues to show the negative effects with increasing SB and decreasing PA. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate three commercial activity trackers with young adults regarding how they accurately measure SB and PA behaviors in a laboratory setting. Methods: 50 college-aged participants wore three wrist-based activity trackers (Fitbit Surge, Apple Watch, and Basis Peak) and two ActiGraph accelerometer devices during a series of SB and PA behaviors for five-minute intervals in a laboratory setting. The activity trackers were evaluated against direct observation and the ActiGraph devices, placed on the hip and wrist, which are consistent with the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) standards of measure. Results: Overall accuracy during the SBs compared to direct observation was high, with Apple (99.0%), Basis (99.0%), and Fitbit (94.9%) performing similar to the Hip ActiGraph (95.1%) and markedly better than the Wrist ActiGraph (58.6%). Overall significant correlations (p â‰¤ 0.05) during the PAs were higher with the Wrist ActiGraph (66.7%) than with the Hip ActiGraph (8.3%). The Wrist and Hip ActiGraphs significantly correlated in three out of four SBs, but not in any PA behaviors.Discussion: Activity trackers are reliable when determining sedentary behavior, tend to overestimate step count during light walking, and underestimate activity level when biking. Also,the Wrist ActiGraph consistently underestimated both SB and PA step count compared to the Hip ActiGraph. While some variability is seen in the validity of the activity trackers, each activity tracker studied has its strengths and weaknesses. Understanding these strengths and limitations helps healthcare professionals more accurately interpret recorded data based on the patient specific device.

Degree

College and Department

Nursing