| Literature DB >> 34468950 |
Garrett I Ash1,2, Matthew Stults-Kolehmainen3,4, Michael A Busa5,6, Allison E Gaffey1,7, Konstantinos Angeloudis8, Borja Muniz-Pardos9, Robert Gregory10, Robert A Huggins11, Nancy S Redeker12, Stuart A Weinzimer13, Lauren A Grieco14, Kate Lyden15, Esmeralda Megally16, Ioannis Vogiatzis17,18, LaurieAnn Scher19,20, Xinxin Zhu21, Julien S Baker22,23,24, Cynthia Brandt1,2,25, Michael S Businelle26,27, Lisa M Fucito28,29,30, Stephanie Griggs31, Robert Jarrin32,33, Bobak J Mortazavi34, Temiloluwa Prioleau35, Walter Roberts28, Elias K Spanakis36,37, Laura M Nally13, Andre Debruyne38,39, Norbert Bachl38,39,40,41, Fabio Pigozzi38,39,42,43, Farzin Halabchi38,44,45, Dimakatso A Ramagole38,46, Dina C Janse van Rensburg38,46, Bernd Wolfarth38,47, Chiara Fossati42, Sandra Rozenstoka38,39,48, Kumpei Tanisawa49, Mats Börjesson38,50,51, José Antonio Casajus9,38, Alex Gonzalez-Aguero9,38, Irina Zelenkova9,52, Jeroen Swart38,53, Gamze Gursoy54, William Meyerson55,56, Jason Liu54, Dov Greenbaum54,57,58, Yannis P Pitsiladis59,60,61, Mark B Gerstein54,56,62,63.
Abstract
Millions of consumer sport and fitness wearables (CSFWs) are used worldwide, and millions of datapoints are generated by each device. Moreover, these numbers are rapidly growing, and they contain a heterogeneity of devices, data types, and contexts for data collection. Companies and consumers would benefit from guiding standards on device quality and data formats. To address this growing need, we convened a virtual panel of industry and academic stakeholders, and this manuscript summarizes the outcomes of the discussion. Our objectives were to identify (1) key facilitators of and barriers to participation by CSFW manufacturers in guiding standards and (2) stakeholder priorities. The venues were the Yale Center for Biomedical Data Science Digital Health Monthly Seminar Series (62 participants) and the New England Chapter of the American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting (59 participants). In the discussion, stakeholders outlined both facilitators of (e.g., commercial return on investment in device quality, lucrative research partnerships, and transparent and multilevel evaluation of device quality) and barriers (e.g., competitive advantage conflict, lack of flexibility in previously developed devices) to participation in guiding standards. There was general agreement to adopt Keadle et al.'s standard pathway for testing devices (i.e., benchtop, laboratory, field-based, implementation) without consensus on the prioritization of these steps. Overall, there was enthusiasm not to add prescriptive or regulatory steps, but instead create a networking hub that connects companies to consumers and researchers for flexible guidance navigating the heterogeneity, multi-tiered development, dynamicity, and nebulousness of the CSFW field.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34468950 PMCID: PMC8666971 DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01543-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sports Med ISSN: 0112-1642 Impact factor: 11.928