Measurement Properties of Smartphone Approaches to Assess Physical Activity in Healthy Young People: Systematic Review.
mHealth
mobile phone
physical activity
prevention
risk
sedentary behavior
smartphone
young people
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 10 2022
21 10 2022
Historique:
received:
27
04
2022
accepted:
16
09
2022
revised:
16
09
2022
entrez:
21
10
2022
pubmed:
22
10
2022
medline:
26
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physical inactivity is a preventable risk factor for several chronic diseases and one of the driving forces behind the growing global burden of disease. Recent evidence has shown that interventions using mobile smartphone apps can promote a significant increase in physical activity (PA) levels. However, the accuracy and reliability of using apps is unknown. The aim of our review was to determine the accuracy and reliability of using mobile apps to measure PA levels in young people. We conducted a systematic review guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Studies published from 2007 to 2020 were sourced from 8 databases-Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Library (Wiley), PsychINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science (Clarivate), SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost), and IEEE Xplore Digital Library database. Studies were conducted in young people aged 10-24 years and without chronic illnesses, who evaluated a mobile app's ability to measure PA. Primary outcomes included validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the measurement approach. Duplicate screening was conducted for eligibility, data extraction, and assessing the risk of bias. Results were reported as a systematic review. The main physical activity measures evaluated for each study were the following: total PA time (min/day or min/week), total moderate to vigorous PA per week, daily step count, intensity measure (heart rate), and frequency measure (days per week). Of the 149 identified studies, 5 met the inclusion criteria (322 participants, 176 female; mean age 14, SD 3 years). A total of 3 studies measured criterion validity and compared PA measured via apps against PA measured via an Actigraph accelerometer. The 2 studies that reported on construct validity identified a significant difference between self-reported PA and the objective measure. Only 1 of the 5 apps examined was available to the public, and although this app was highly accepted by young people, the app recorded PA to be significantly different to participants' self-reported PA. Overall, few studies assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of mobile apps to measure PA in healthy young people, with studies typically only reporting on one measurement property. Of the 3 studies that measured validity, all concluded that mobile phones were acceptable and valid tools. More research is needed into the validity and reliability of smartphone apps to measure PA levels in this population as well as in populations with other characteristics, including other age groups and those with chronic diseases. PROSPERO CRD42019122242; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=122242.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Physical inactivity is a preventable risk factor for several chronic diseases and one of the driving forces behind the growing global burden of disease. Recent evidence has shown that interventions using mobile smartphone apps can promote a significant increase in physical activity (PA) levels. However, the accuracy and reliability of using apps is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of our review was to determine the accuracy and reliability of using mobile apps to measure PA levels in young people. We conducted a systematic review guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses).
METHODS
Studies published from 2007 to 2020 were sourced from 8 databases-Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Library (Wiley), PsychINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science (Clarivate), SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost), and IEEE Xplore Digital Library database. Studies were conducted in young people aged 10-24 years and without chronic illnesses, who evaluated a mobile app's ability to measure PA. Primary outcomes included validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the measurement approach. Duplicate screening was conducted for eligibility, data extraction, and assessing the risk of bias. Results were reported as a systematic review. The main physical activity measures evaluated for each study were the following: total PA time (min/day or min/week), total moderate to vigorous PA per week, daily step count, intensity measure (heart rate), and frequency measure (days per week).
RESULTS
Of the 149 identified studies, 5 met the inclusion criteria (322 participants, 176 female; mean age 14, SD 3 years). A total of 3 studies measured criterion validity and compared PA measured via apps against PA measured via an Actigraph accelerometer. The 2 studies that reported on construct validity identified a significant difference between self-reported PA and the objective measure. Only 1 of the 5 apps examined was available to the public, and although this app was highly accepted by young people, the app recorded PA to be significantly different to participants' self-reported PA.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, few studies assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of mobile apps to measure PA in healthy young people, with studies typically only reporting on one measurement property. Of the 3 studies that measured validity, all concluded that mobile phones were acceptable and valid tools. More research is needed into the validity and reliability of smartphone apps to measure PA levels in this population as well as in populations with other characteristics, including other age groups and those with chronic diseases.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019122242; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=122242.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36269659
pii: v10i10e39085
doi: 10.2196/39085
pmc: PMC9636527
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e39085Informations de copyright
©Belinda Parmenter, Claire Burley, Courtney Stewart, Jesse Whife, Katrina Champion, Bridie Osman, Nicola Newton, Olivia Green, Annie B Wescott, Lauren A Gardner, Rachel Visontay, Louise Birrell, Zachary Bryant, Cath Chapman, David R Lubans, Matthew Sunderland, Tim Slade, Louise Thornton. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 21.10.2022.
Références
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 14;10(8):e0134606
pubmed: 26274586
Br J Sports Med. 2021 Apr;55(8):422-432
pubmed: 33355160
JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Sep 01;173(9):853-859
pubmed: 31305878
J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(7):368-73
pubmed: 20679405
BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 13;10(7):e035662
pubmed: 32665344
Eur J Epidemiol. 2018 Sep;33(9):811-829
pubmed: 29589226
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Oct 16;15(10):
pubmed: 30332785
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 Jan;4(1):23-35
pubmed: 31761562
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170
pubmed: 29550964
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1171-1179
pubmed: 29260445
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Jun;19(6):1205-12
pubmed: 21164502
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Feb 17;10(2):e27337
pubmed: 35175212
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jul 27;18(7):e209
pubmed: 27465701
J Phys Act Health. 2018 Nov 1;15(S2):S251-S273
pubmed: 30475137
Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 3;9(1):127
pubmed: 32493467
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):294-305
pubmed: 22818941
J Intern Med. 2019 Aug;286(2):137-153
pubmed: 30993807
PLoS Med. 2015 Dec 08;12(12):e1001917
pubmed: 26645683
Appetite. 2012 Apr;58(2):432-7
pubmed: 22155072
Sports Med. 2014 May;44(5):671-86
pubmed: 24497157
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):247-57
pubmed: 22818937
Gait Posture. 2017 Sep;57:199-203
pubmed: 28666177
Med J Aust. 2022 Feb 21;216(3):156-157
pubmed: 34747039