Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers as measuring tool and coaching device in breast and colorectal cancer survivors.
Accelerometry
Cancer
Case–control study
Physical activity
Journal
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
ISSN: 1433-7339
Titre abrégé: Support Care Cancer
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9302957
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Sep 2023
28 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
08
12
2022
accepted:
22
09
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
28
9
2023
entrez:
28
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Consumer-based activity trackers are used to measure and promote PA. We studied the accuracy of a wrist- and waist-worn activity tracker in cancer survivors and compared these results to a healthy age-matched control group. Twenty-two cancer survivors and 35 healthy subjects wore an activity tracker at the waist and at the wrist combined with a reference activity monitor at the waist (Dynaport Movemonitor). The devices were worn for 14 consecutive days. The mean daily step count from both activity trackers was compared with the reference activity monitor to investigate accuracy and agreement (paired t-test, intraclass correlation, Bland-Altman plots). To evaluate the accuracy as a coaching tool, day-by-day differences within patients were calculated. The Kendall correlation coefficient was used to test the consistency of ranking daily steps between the activity trackers and the reference activity monitor. The wrist-worn wearable significantly overestimated the daily step count in the cancer group (mean ± SDΔ: + 1305 (2685) steps per day; p = 0.033) and in the healthy control group (mean ± SDΔ: + 1598 (2927) steps per day; p = 0.003). The waist-worn wearable underestimated the step count in both groups, although this was not statistically significant. As a coaching device, moderate (r = 0.642-0.670) and strong (r = 0.733-0.738) accuracy was found for the wrist- and waist-worn tracker, respectively, for detecting day-by-day variability in both populations. Our results show that wrist-worn activity trackers significantly overestimate daily step count in both cancer survivors and healthy control subjects. Based on the accuracy, in particular, the waist-worn activity tracker could possibly be used as a coaching tool.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37768403
doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-08061-2
pii: 10.1007/s00520-023-08061-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
596Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Dyba T, Randi G, Bray F et al (2021) The European cancer burden in 2020: incidence and mortality estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 157:308–347
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.07.039
Patel AV, Friedenreich CM, Moore SC et al (2019) American College of Sports Medicine roundtable report on physical activity, sedentary behavior, and cancer prevention and control. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51(11):2391–2402
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002117
pubmed: 31626056
pmcid: 6814265
Campbell KL, Winters-Stone KM, Wiskemann J et al (2019) Exercise guidelines for cancer survivors: consensus statement from international multidisciplinary roundtable. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51(11):2375–2390
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002116
pubmed: 31626055
pmcid: 8576825
Asnong A, D’Hoore A, Wolthuis A et al (2021) Physical activity levels after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: one-year follow-up. BMC Public Health 21(1):2270
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12311-5
pubmed: 34903207
pmcid: 8667409
De Groef A, Geraerts I, Demeyer H et al (2018) Physical activity levels after treatment for breast cancer: two-year follow-up. Breast 40:23–28
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.04.009
pubmed: 29674221
Henriksen A, Haugen Mikalsen M, Woldaregay AZ et al (2018) Using fitness trackers and smartwatches to measure physical activity in research: analysis of consumer wrist-worn wearables. J Med Internet Res 20(3):e110
doi: 10.2196/jmir.9157
pubmed: 29567635
pmcid: 5887043
Lyons EJ, Lewis ZH, Mayrsohn BG, Rowland JL (2014) Behavior change techniques implemented in electronic lifestyle activity monitors: a systematic content analysis. J Med Internet Res 16(8):e192
doi: 10.2196/jmir.3469
pubmed: 25131661
pmcid: 4147713
Schaffer K, Panneerselvam N, Loh KP et al (2019) Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of exercise interventions using digital activity trackers in patients with cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw:JNCCN 17(1):57–63
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7082
pubmed: 30659130
Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M et al (2013) The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med:Publ Soc Behav Med 46(1):81–95
doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
Coughlin SS, Caplan LS, Stone R (2020) Use of consumer wearable devices to promote physical activity among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors: a review of health intervention studies. J Cancer Survivorship : Res Pract 14(3):386–392
doi: 10.1007/s11764-020-00855-1
Alinia P, Cain C, Fallahzadeh R, Shahrokni A, Cook D, Ghasemzadeh H (2017) How accurate is your activity tracker? A comparative study of step counts in low-intensity physical activities. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 5(8):e106
doi: 10.2196/mhealth.6321
pubmed: 28801304
pmcid: 5572056
Tully MA, McBride C, Heron L, Hunter RF (2014) The validation of Fibit Zip™ physical activity monitor as a measure of free-living physical activity. BMC Res Notes 7:952
doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-952
pubmed: 25539733
pmcid: 4307145
Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD (2015) Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12:159
doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1
pubmed: 26684758
pmcid: 4683756
Ginis P, Goris M, De Groef A, Blondeel A, Gilat M, Demeyer H et al (2023) Validation of commercial activity trackers in everyday life of people with Parkinson's disease. Sensors 23(8):4156. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23084156
Blondeel A, Demeyer H, Janssens W, Troosters T (2020) Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers as measuring tool and coaching device in patients with COPD and healthy controls. PLoS One 15(8):e0236676
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236676
pubmed: 32750073
pmcid: 7402478
Blondeel AD, Asnong N, Geraerts A, De Groef I, Heroes A, Van Calster A, Troosters C, Demeyer T, Ginis H, De Vrieze TP (n.d.) Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers to measure and coach patients with lower limb lymphoedema. Under consideration for publication
Van Remoortel H, Raste Y, Louvaris Z et al (2012) Validity of six activity monitors in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a comparison with indirect calorimetry. PLoS One 7(6):e39198
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039198
pubmed: 22745715
pmcid: 3380044
Rabinovich RA, Louvaris Z, Raste Y et al (2013) Validity of physical activity monitors during daily life in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 42(5):1205–1215
doi: 10.1183/09031936.00134312
pubmed: 23397303
de Groot S, Nieuwenhuizen MG (2013) Validity and reliability of measuring activities, movement intensity and energy expenditure with the DynaPort MoveMonitor. Med Eng Phys 35(10):1499–1505
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.04.004
pubmed: 23684579
Fokkenrood HJ, Verhofstad N, van den Houten MM et al (2014) Physical activity monitoring in patients with peripheral arterial disease: validation of an activity monitor. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 48(2):194–200
doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.04.003
pubmed: 24880631
Langer D, Gosselink R, Sena R, Burtin C, Decramer M, Troosters T (2009) Validation of two activity monitors in patients with COPD. Thorax 64(7):641–642
doi: 10.1136/thx.2008.112102
pubmed: 19561287
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
pubmed: 18929686
Mukaka MM (2012) Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 24(3):69–71
pubmed: 23638278
pmcid: 3576830
Tudor-Locke C, Sisson SB, Lee SM, Craig CL, Plotnikoff RC, Bauman A (2006) Evaluation of quality of commercial pedometers. Can J Public Health 97(Suppl 1):S10-15
doi: 10.1007/BF03405359
pubmed: 16676833
pmcid: 6975901
De Groef A, Demeyer H, de Kinkelder C et al (2022) Physical activity levels of breast cancer patients before diagnosis compared to a reference population: a cross-sectional comparative study. Clin Breast Cancer 22(5):e708–e717
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2021.12.006
pubmed: 35012888
Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Aoyagi Y et al (2011) How many steps/day are enough? For older adults and special populations. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8(1):80
doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-80
pubmed: 21798044
pmcid: 3169444
Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Brown WJ et al (2011) How many steps/day are enough? For adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8:79
doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-79
pubmed: 21798015
pmcid: 3197470
Salerno EA, Saint-Maurice PF, Willis EA, Moore SC, DiPietro L, Matthews CE (2021) Ambulatory function and mortality among cancer survivors in the NIH-AARP diet and health study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 30(4):690–698
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1473
Alley S, Schoeppe S, Guertler D, Jennings C, Duncan MJ, Vandelanotte C (2016) Interest and preferences for using advanced physical activity tracking devices: results of a national cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 6(7):e011243
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011243
pubmed: 27388359
pmcid: 4947799
Ng A, Gupta E, Bansal S et al (2021) Cancer patients’ perception of usefulness of wearable exercise trackers. PM R 13(8):845–851
doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12475
pubmed: 32844592
Hardcastle SJ, Galliott M, Lynch BM et al (2018) Acceptability and utility of, and preference for wearable activity trackers amongst non-metropolitan cancer survivors. PLoS One 13(12):e0210039
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210039
pubmed: 30596781
pmcid: 6312256