Comparison of raw accelerometry data from ActiGraph, Apple Watch, Garmin, and Fitbit using a mechanical shaker table.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the raw accelerometry output from research-grade and consumer wearable devices compared to accelerations produced by a mechanical shaker table. Raw accelerometry data from a total of 40 devices (i.e., n = 10 ActiGraph wGT3X-BT, n = 10 Apple Watch Series 7, n = 10 Garmin Vivoactive 4S, and n = 10 Fitbit Sense) were compared to reference accelerations produced by an orbital shaker table at speeds ranging from 0.6 Hz (4.4 milligravity-mg) to 3.2 Hz (124.7mg). Two-way random effects absolute intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) tested inter-device reliability. Pearson product moment, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), absolute error, mean bias, and equivalence testing were calculated to assess the validity between the raw estimates from the devices and the reference metric. Estimates from Apple, ActiGraph, Garmin, and Fitbit were reliable, with ICCs = 0.99, 0.97, 0.88, and 0.88, respectively. Estimates from ActiGraph, Apple, and Fitbit devices exhibited excellent concordance with the reference CCCs = 0.88, 0.83, and 0.85, respectively, while estimates from Garmin exhibited moderate concordance CCC = 0.59 based on the mean aggregation method. ActiGraph, Apple, and Fitbit produced similar absolute errors = 16.9mg, 21.6mg, and 22.0mg, respectively, while Garmin produced higher absolute error = 32.5mg compared to the reference. ActiGraph produced the lowest mean bias 0.0mg (95%CI = -40.0, 41.0). Equivalence testing revealed raw accelerometry data from all devices were not statistically significantly within the equivalence bounds of the shaker speed. Findings from this study provide evidence that raw accelerometry data from Apple, Garmin, and Fitbit devices can be used to reliably estimate movement; however, no estimates were statistically significantly equivalent to the reference. Future studies could explore device-agnostic and harmonization methods for estimating physical activity using the raw accelerometry signals from the consumer wearables studied herein.

Contextual influences on implementation of online behavioral obesity treatment in primary care: formative evaluation guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research.

Online behavioral obesity treatment is a promising first-line approach to weight management in primary care. However, little is known about contextual influences on implementation. Understand qualitative contextual factors that affect the implementation process, as experienced by key primary care stakeholders implementing the program. Online behavioral obesity treatment was implemented across a 60-clinic primary care practice network. Patients were enrolled by nurse care managers (NCMs; N = 14), each serving 2-5 practices. NCMs were randomized to one of two implementation conditions-"Basic" (standard implementation) or "Enhanced" (i.e., with added patient tracking features and more implementation strategies employed). NCMs completed qualitative interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed via directed content analysis. Emergent categories were summarized by implementation condition and assigned a valence according to positive/negative influence. Individuals in the Enhanced condition viewed two aspects of the intervention as more positively influencing than Basic NCMs: Design Quality & Packaging (i.e., online program aesthetics), and Cost (i.e., no-cost program, clinician time savings). In both conditions, strongly facilitating factors included: Compatibility between intervention and clinical context; Intervention Source (from a trusted local university); and Evidence Strength & Quality supporting effectiveness. Findings highlight the importance of considering stakeholders' perspectives on the most valued types of evidence when introducing a new intervention, ensuring the program aligns with organizational priorities, and considering how training resources and feedback on patient progress can improve implementation success for online behavioral obesity treatment in primary care.

Primary care clinicians' perspectives on clinical decision support to enhance outcomes of online obesity treatment in primary care: A qualitative formative evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Online behavioral treatment for obesity produces clinically-meaningful weight losses among many primary care patients. However, some patients experience poor outcomes (i.e., failure to enroll post-referral, poor weight loss, or premature disengagement). This study sought to understand primary care clinicians' perceived utility of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that would alert clinicians to patients' risk for poor outcome and guide clinician-delivered rescue interventions to reduce risk. METHODS: Qualitative formative evaluation was conducted in the context of an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial implementing online obesity treatment in primary care. Interviews were conducted with 14 nurse care managers (NCMs) overseeing patients' online obesity treatment. Interviews inquired about the potential utility of CDSS in primary care, desired alert frequency/format, and priorities for alert types (non-enrollment, poor weight loss, and/or early disengagement). We used matrix analysis to generate common themes across interviews. RESULTS: Nearly all NCMs viewed CDSS as potentially helpful in clinical practice. Alerts for patients at risk for disengagement were of highest priority, though all alert types were generally viewed as desirable. Regarding frequency and delivery mode of patient alerts, NCMs wanted to balance the need for prompt patient intervention with minimizing clinician burden. Concerns about CDSS emerged, including insufficient time to respond promptly and adequately to alerts and the need to involve other support staff for patients requiring ongoing rescue intervention. CONCLUSIONS: NCMs view CDSS for online obesity treatment as potentially feasible and clinically useful. For optimal implementation in primary care, CDSS must minimize clinician burden and facilitate collaborative care.