Validation of the Activ8 Activity Monitor for Monitoring Postures, Motions, Transfers, and Steps of Hospitalized Patients.

Sedentary behaviors and low physical activity among hospitalized patients have detrimental effects on health and recovery. Wearable activity monitors are a promising tool to promote mobilization and physical activity. However, existing devices have limitations in terms of their outcomes and validity. The Activ8 device was optimized for the hospital setting. This study assessed the concurrent validity of the modified Activ8. Hospital patients performed an activity protocol that included basic (e.g., walking) and functional activities (e.g., room activities), with video recordings serving as the criterion method. The assessed outcomes were time spent walking, standing, upright, sedentary, and newly added elements of steps and transfers. Absolute and relative time differences were calculated, and Wilcoxon and Bland-Altman analyses were conducted. Overall, the observed relative time differences were lower than 2.9% for the basic protocol and 9.6% for the functional protocol. Statistically significant differences were detected in specific categories, including basic standing (p < 0.05), upright time (p < 0.01), and sedentary time (p < 0.01), but they did not exceed the predetermined 10% acceptable threshold. The modified Activ8 device is a valid tool for assessing body postures, motions, steps, and transfer counts in hospitalized patients. This study highlights the potential of wearable activity monitors to accurately monitor and promote PA among hospital patients.

Assessment of 24-hour physical behaviour in children and adolescents via wearables: a systematic review of free-living validation studies.

Objectives: Studies that assess all three dimensions of the integrative 24-hour physical behaviour (PB) construct, namely, intensity, posture/activity type and biological state, are on the rise. However, reviews on validation studies that cover intensity, posture/activity type and biological state assessed via wearables are missing. Design: Systematic review. The risk of bias was evaluated by using the QUADAS-2 tool with nine signalling questions separated into four domains (ie, patient selection/study design, index measure, criterion measure, flow and time). Data sources: Peer-reviewed validation studies from electronic databases as well as backward and forward citation searches (1970-July 2021). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Wearable validation studies with children and adolescents (age <18 years). Required indicators: (1) study protocol must include real-life conditions; (2) validated device outcome must belong to one dimension of the 24-hour PB construct; (3) the study protocol must include a criterion measure; (4) study results must be published in peer-reviewed English language journals. Results: Out of 13 285 unique search results, 76 articles with 51 different wearables were included and reviewed. Most studies (68.4%) validated an intensity measure outcome such as energy expenditure, but only 15.9% of studies validated biological state outcomes, while 15.8% of studies validated posture/activity type outcomes. We identified six wearables that had been used to validate outcomes from two different dimensions and only two wearables (ie, ActiGraph GT1M and ActiGraph GT3X+) that validated outcomes from all three dimensions. The percentage of studies meeting a given quality criterion ranged from 44.7% to 92.1%. Only 18 studies were classified as 'low risk' or 'some concerns'. Summary: Validation studies on biological state and posture/activity outcomes are rare in children and adolescents. Most studies did not meet published quality principles. Standardised protocols embedded in a validation framework are needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021230894.

Quality Evaluation of Free-living Validation Studies for the Assessment of 24-Hour Physical Behavior in Adults via Wearables: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Wearable technology is a leading fitness trend in the growing commercial industry and an established method for collecting 24-hour physical behavior data in research studies. High-quality free-living validation studies are required to enable both researchers and consumers to make guided decisions on which study to rely on and which device to use. However, reviews focusing on the quality of free-living validation studies in adults are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to raise researchers' and consumers' attention to the quality of published validation protocols while aiming to identify and compare specific consistencies or inconsistencies between protocols. We aimed to provide a comprehensive and historical overview of which wearable devices have been validated for which purpose and whether they show promise for use in further studies. METHODS: Peer-reviewed validation studies from electronic databases, as well as backward and forward citation searches (1970 to July 2021), with the following, required indicators were included: protocol must include real-life conditions, outcome must belong to one dimension of the 24-hour physical behavior construct (intensity, posture or activity type, and biological state), the protocol must include a criterion measure, and study results must be published in English-language journals. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool with 9 questions separated into 4 domains (patient selection or study design, index measure, criterion measure, and flow and time). RESULTS: Of the 13,285 unique search results, 222 (1.67%) articles were included. Most studies (153/237, 64.6%) validated an intensity measure outcome such as energy expenditure. However, only 19.8% (47/237) validated biological state and 15.6% (37/237) validated posture or activity-type outcomes. Across all studies, 163 different wearables were identified. Of these, 58.9% (96/163) were validated only once. ActiGraph GT3X/GT3X+ (36/163, 22.1%), Fitbit Flex (20/163, 12.3%), and ActivPAL (12/163, 7.4%) were used most often in the included studies. The percentage of participants meeting the quality criteria ranged from 38.8% (92/237) to 92.4% (219/237). On the basis of our classification tree to evaluate the overall study quality, 4.6% (11/237) of studies were classified as low risk. Furthermore, 16% (38/237) of studies were classified as having some concerns, and 72.9% (173/237) of studies were classified as high risk. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, free-living validation studies of wearables are characterized by low methodological quality, large variability in design, and focus on intensity. Future research should strongly aim at biological state and posture or activity outcomes and strive for standardized protocols embedded in a validation framework. Standardized protocols for free-living validation embedded in a framework are urgently needed to inform and guide stakeholders (eg, manufacturers, scientists, and consumers) in selecting wearables for self-tracking purposes, applying wearables in health studies, and fostering innovation to achieve improved validity.