Chris Lynch1,2, Stephen Bird1, Noel Lythgo1, Isaac Selva-Raj1. 1. Exercise Science, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia. 2. The Northern Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a fitness tracker (FT) intervention changes physical activity (PA) behavior compared to a control condition or compared to an alternative intervention. DATA SOURCE: Searches between January 01, 2010, and January 01, 2019, were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials of adults using an FT to change PA behavior were included. Nonclinical trials, studies that included the delivery of structured exercise, and/or studies that only used the FT to assess PA were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted features included characteristics of the study population, intervention components, PA outcomes, and results. DATA SYNTHESIS: Papers were pooled in a statistical meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. Where statistical pooling was not possible, standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Findings were presented in a narrative form and tables. RESULTS: Of 2076 articles found, 21 were included in the review. A small yet significant positive effect (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.17-0.32; P < .01; I2 = 56.9%; P = .03) was found in step count for interventions compared to control. A small yet significant negative effect (SMD = -0.11, 95% CI = -0.20 to -0.02; P = .02; I2 = 58.2%; P = 0.03) was found in moderate-to-vigorous PA for interventions compared to an alternative intervention. CONCLUSION: Trackers may enhance PA interventions, as a general positive effect is found in step count compared to a control. However, there is no evidence of a positive effect when interventions are compared to an alternative intervention. It is unknown whether results are due to other intervention components and/or clinical heterogeneity.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a fitness tracker (FT) intervention changes physical activity (PA) behavior compared to a control condition or compared to an alternative intervention. DATA SOURCE: Searches between January 01, 2010, and January 01, 2019, were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials of adults using an FT to change PA behavior were included. Nonclinical trials, studies that included the delivery of structured exercise, and/or studies that only used the FT to assess PA were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted features included characteristics of the study population, intervention components, PA outcomes, and results. DATA SYNTHESIS: Papers were pooled in a statistical meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. Where statistical pooling was not possible, standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Findings were presented in a narrative form and tables. RESULTS: Of 2076 articles found, 21 were included in the review. A small yet significant positive effect (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.17-0.32; P < .01; I2 = 56.9%; P = .03) was found in step count for interventions compared to control. A small yet significant negative effect (SMD = -0.11, 95% CI = -0.20 to -0.02; P = .02; I2 = 58.2%; P = 0.03) was found in moderate-to-vigorous PA for interventions compared to an alternative intervention. CONCLUSION: Trackers may enhance PA interventions, as a general positive effect is found in step count compared to a control. However, there is no evidence of a positive effect when interventions are compared to an alternative intervention. It is unknown whether results are due to other intervention components and/or clinical heterogeneity.
Authors: Carmina G Valle; Bernardine M Pinto; Jessica Gokee LaRose; Molly Diamond; Lindsey N Horrell; Brooke T Nezami; Karen E Hatley; Erin M Coffman; Kristen Polzien; Derek P Hales; Allison M Deal; Christine M Rini; Donald L Rosenstein; Deborah F Tate Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Samantha Hajna; Stephen J Sharp; Andrew J M Cooper; Kate M Williams; Esther M F van Sluijs; Soren Brage; Simon J Griffin; Stephen Sutton Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Tamar Ginossar; Heidi Rishel Brakey; Andrew L Sussman; Brittany Price; Miria Kano; Sally Davis; Cindy K Blair Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mary H Smart; Nadia A Nabulsi; Ben S Gerber; Itika Gupta; Barbara Di Eugenio; Brian Ziebart; Lisa K Sharp Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-01-19