Literature DB >> 21975729

Assessment of wearable global positioning system units for physical activity research.

Kathleen Meghan Wieters1, Jun-Hyun Kim, Chanam Lee.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Responding to the growing interest in the environmental influences on physical activity, and the concerns about the limitations of self-report data, this study evaluates Global Positioning System (GPS) units for measuring outdoor physical activity.
METHODS: Four GPS models were selected to test their accuracy related to adherence to an actual route walked, variations based on position of unit on user's body, and variations against a known geodetic point. A qualitative assessment was performed using the following criteria: a) battery life, b) memory capacity, c) initial satellite signal acquisition time, d) ease of data transfer to other programs, e) wearability, f) ease of operation, g) suitability for specific study populations, and h) price. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: The Garmin Forerunner provided the most accurate data for data points collected along a known route. Comparisons based on different body placement of units showed some variations. GlobalSat reported battery life of 24 hours, compared with 9-15 hours for the other units. The static test using ANOVA showed that the Garmin Foretrex's data points compared with a geodetic point was significantly more accurate than the other 3 models. GPS units appear promising as a tool to capture objective data on outdoor physical activities.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21975729     DOI: 10.1123/jpah.9.7.913

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Phys Act Health        ISSN: 1543-3080


  8 in total

1.  Comparing GPS, Log, Survey, and Accelerometry to Measure Physical Activity.

Authors:  Peter James; Jennifer Weissman; Jean Wolf; Karen Mumford; Cheryl K Contant; Wei-Ting Hwang; Lynne Taylor; Karen Glanz
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2016-01

2.  Quantifying Distance Overestimation From Global Positioning System in Urban Spaces.

Authors:  Stephen J Mooney; Daniel M Sheehan; Garazi Zulaika; Andrew G Rundle; Kevin McGill; Melika R Behrooz; Gina Schellenbaum Lovasi
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Perspective: Opportunities and Challenges of Technology Tools in Dietary and Activity Assessment: Bridging Stakeholder Viewpoints.

Authors:  Sai Krupa Das; Akari J Miki; Caroline M Blanchard; Edward Sazonov; Cheryl H Gilhooly; Sujit Dey; Colton B Wolk; Chor San H Khoo; James O Hill; Robin P Shook
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 11.567

4.  Review of Validity and Reliability of Garmin Activity Trackers.

Authors:  Kelly R Evenson; Camden L Spade
Journal:  J Meas Phys Behav       Date:  2020-06

5.  An assessment of the relevance of the home neighbourhood for understanding environmental influences on physical activity: how far from home do people roam?

Authors:  Melvyn Hillsdon; Emma Coombes; Pippa Griew; Andy Jones
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2015-08-16       Impact factor: 6.457

6.  Dynamic Accuracy of GPS Receivers for Use in Health Research: A Novel Method to Assess GPS Accuracy in Real-World Settings.

Authors:  Jasper Schipperijn; Jacqueline Kerr; Scott Duncan; Thomas Madsen; Charlotte Demant Klinker; Jens Troelsen
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2014-03-10

Review 7.  Applications of Space Technologies to Global Health: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Damien Dietrich; Ralitza Dekova; Stephan Davy; Guillaume Fahrni; Antoine Geissbühler
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 8.  Technologies That Assess the Location of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Adam Loveday; Lauren B Sherar; James P Sanders; Paul W Sanderson; Dale W Esliger
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 5.428

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.