Exploring Variations in Sleep Perception: Comparative Study of Chatbot Sleep Logs and Fitbit Sleep Data.
Fitbit
PGHD
chat
patient-generated health data
self-report
sleep
sleep diary
sleep log
sleep time
wearables
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 Nov 2023
21 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
24
05
2023
accepted:
18
10
2023
revised:
11
09
2023
medline:
22
11
2023
pubmed:
21
11
2023
entrez:
21
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-generated health data are important in the management of several diseases. Although there are limitations, information can be obtained using a wearable device and time-related information such as exercise time or sleep time can also be obtained. Fitbits can be used to acquire sleep onset, sleep offset, total sleep time (TST), and wakefulness after sleep onset (WASO) data, although there are limitations regarding the depth of sleep and satisfaction; therefore, the patient's subjective response is still important information that cannot be replaced by wearable devices. To effectively use patient-generated health data related to time such as sleep, it is first necessary to understand the characteristics of the time response recorded by the user. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics of individuals' time perception in comparison with wearable data. Sleep data were acquired for 2 weeks using a Fitbit. Participants' sleep records were collected daily through chatbot conversations while wearing the Fitbit, and the two sets of data were statistically compared. In total, 736 people aged 30-59 years were recruited for this study, and the sleep data of 543 people who wore a Fitbit and responded to the chatbot for more than 7 days on the same day were analyzed. Research participants tended to respond to sleep-related times on the hour or in 30-minute increments, and each participant responded within the range of 60-90 minutes from the value measured by the Fitbit. On average for all participants, the chat responses and the Fitbit data were similar within a difference of approximately 15 minutes. Regarding sleep onset, the participant response was 8 minutes and 39 seconds (SD 58 minutes) later than that of the Fitbit data, whereas with respect to sleep offset, the response was 5 minutes and 38 seconds (SD 57 minutes) earlier. The participants' actual sleep time (AST) indicated in the chat was similar to that obtained by subtracting the WASO from the TST measured by the Fitbit. The AST was 13 minutes and 39 seconds (SD 87 minutes) longer than the time WASO was subtracted from the Fitbit TST. On days when the participants reported good sleep, they responded 19 (SD 90) minutes longer on the AST than the Fitbit data. However, for each sleep event, the probability that the participant's AST was within ±30 and ±60 minutes of the Fitbit TST-WASO was 50.7% and 74.3%, respectively. The chatbot sleep response and Fitbit measured time were similar on average and the study participants had a slight tendency to perceive a relatively long sleep time if the quality of sleep was self-reported as good. However, on a participant-by-participant basis, it was difficult to predict participants' sleep duration responses with Fitbit data. Individual variations in sleep time perception significantly affect patient responses related to sleep, revealing the limitations of objective measures obtained through wearable devices.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient-generated health data are important in the management of several diseases. Although there are limitations, information can be obtained using a wearable device and time-related information such as exercise time or sleep time can also be obtained. Fitbits can be used to acquire sleep onset, sleep offset, total sleep time (TST), and wakefulness after sleep onset (WASO) data, although there are limitations regarding the depth of sleep and satisfaction; therefore, the patient's subjective response is still important information that cannot be replaced by wearable devices.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To effectively use patient-generated health data related to time such as sleep, it is first necessary to understand the characteristics of the time response recorded by the user. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics of individuals' time perception in comparison with wearable data.
METHODS
METHODS
Sleep data were acquired for 2 weeks using a Fitbit. Participants' sleep records were collected daily through chatbot conversations while wearing the Fitbit, and the two sets of data were statistically compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 736 people aged 30-59 years were recruited for this study, and the sleep data of 543 people who wore a Fitbit and responded to the chatbot for more than 7 days on the same day were analyzed. Research participants tended to respond to sleep-related times on the hour or in 30-minute increments, and each participant responded within the range of 60-90 minutes from the value measured by the Fitbit. On average for all participants, the chat responses and the Fitbit data were similar within a difference of approximately 15 minutes. Regarding sleep onset, the participant response was 8 minutes and 39 seconds (SD 58 minutes) later than that of the Fitbit data, whereas with respect to sleep offset, the response was 5 minutes and 38 seconds (SD 57 minutes) earlier. The participants' actual sleep time (AST) indicated in the chat was similar to that obtained by subtracting the WASO from the TST measured by the Fitbit. The AST was 13 minutes and 39 seconds (SD 87 minutes) longer than the time WASO was subtracted from the Fitbit TST. On days when the participants reported good sleep, they responded 19 (SD 90) minutes longer on the AST than the Fitbit data. However, for each sleep event, the probability that the participant's AST was within ±30 and ±60 minutes of the Fitbit TST-WASO was 50.7% and 74.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The chatbot sleep response and Fitbit measured time were similar on average and the study participants had a slight tendency to perceive a relatively long sleep time if the quality of sleep was self-reported as good. However, on a participant-by-participant basis, it was difficult to predict participants' sleep duration responses with Fitbit data. Individual variations in sleep time perception significantly affect patient responses related to sleep, revealing the limitations of objective measures obtained through wearable devices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37988148
pii: v11i1e49144
doi: 10.2196/49144
pmc: PMC10698662
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e49144Informations de copyright
©Hyunchul Jang, Siwoo Lee, Yunhee Son, Sumin Seo, Younghwa Baek, Sujeong Mun, Hoseok Kim, Icktae Kim, Junho Kim. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 21.11.2023.
Références
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jun 19;7(6):e13084
pubmed: 31219048
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Oct 5;23(10):e26476
pubmed: 34609317
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Mar 1;9(3):e25289
pubmed: 33646135
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Nov 2;8(10):e20465
pubmed: 33038869
Am Sociol Rev. 2013 Feb;78(1):51-69
pubmed: 25237206
BMJ Open. 2020 Apr 9;10(4):e034499
pubmed: 32276954
Chronobiol Int. 2018 Apr;35(4):465-476
pubmed: 29235907
Arch Intern Med. 1998 Jun 22;158(12):1333-7
pubmed: 9645828
Sleep. 2015 Jun 01;38(6):843-4
pubmed: 26039963
Support Care Cancer. 2011 Nov;19(11):1831-40
pubmed: 20972588
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Apr 20;8(4):e14306
pubmed: 32310142
Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2006 Nov;12(6):383-9
pubmed: 17053485
Sleep. 2023 Feb 8;46(2):
pubmed: 36611112
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2015 Dec;23(12):2491-8
pubmed: 26727118
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Jul 25;5(7):e105
pubmed: 28743679
JMIR Form Res. 2021 Dec 9;5(12):e29573
pubmed: 34889746
J Obes Metab Syndr. 2019 Mar;28(1):40-45
pubmed: 31089578
PeerJ. 2018 May 25;6:e4849
pubmed: 29844990
Psychiatry Res. 1989 May;28(2):193-213
pubmed: 2748771
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Nov 28;21(11):e16273
pubmed: 31778122
Health Psychol Behav Med. 2020 Dec 08;8(1):623-635
pubmed: 34040889
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Jul;51(7):1538-1557
pubmed: 30789439
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Jan 19;9(1):e14494
pubmed: 33464213
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Aug 09;6(8):e10527
pubmed: 30093371
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 06;7:43690
pubmed: 28262807
Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Jan;49(1):102-8
pubmed: 21924421
J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Jul 15;14(7):1209-1230
pubmed: 29991438
Sleep. 2013 Nov 01;36(11):1747-55
pubmed: 24179309
Sleep. 2003 May 1;26(3):342-92
pubmed: 12749557
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Dec 18;20(12):e11321
pubmed: 30563808
J Psychosom Res. 2002 Sep;53(3):737-40
pubmed: 12217446
Sleep Med Clin. 2021 Dec;16(4):607-618
pubmed: 34711385
Chest. 2011 Jun;139(6):1514-1527
pubmed: 21652563
Nat Sci Sleep. 2020 Oct 27;12:821-842
pubmed: 33149712
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Dec 1;180(12):1694-1696
pubmed: 32926073
Sleep Breath. 2012 Sep;16(3):803-12
pubmed: 21901299
Sleep Med. 2001 Sep;2(5):389-96
pubmed: 14592388
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 12;22(10):e23954
pubmed: 33044175
J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Jul 15;14(7):1231-1237
pubmed: 29991437
JMIR Form Res. 2020 Sep 29;4(9):e18086
pubmed: 32990631
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Apr 1;8(4):e10733
pubmed: 32234707
Sleep Med Rev. 2011 Aug;15(4):259-67
pubmed: 21237680
Sleep. 2020 Jul 13;43(7):
pubmed: 32215550
J Clin Sleep Med. 2019 Sep 15;15(9):1337-1346
pubmed: 31538605
J Clin Sleep Med. 2022 Feb 1;18(2):541-551
pubmed: 34534069
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jun 18;23(6):e22151
pubmed: 34142966
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jun 05;6(6):e131
pubmed: 29871856
Sleep. 1995 May;18(4):288-302
pubmed: 7618029
Sleep Med. 2002 Jan;3(1):21-8
pubmed: 14592249
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jun 06;7(6):e13384
pubmed: 31172956
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Sep 18;166(16):1775-82
pubmed: 16983058
JMIR Form Res. 2020 Apr 7;4(4):e14508
pubmed: 32254044
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018 Jul;2018:4997-5001
pubmed: 30441463
J Pediatr (Rio J). 2017 Mar - Apr;93(2):200-206
pubmed: 27520731