Smartphone apps for tracking physical activity and sedentary behavior: A criterion validity review

R. C. R. Prado, M. Knebel, E. H. Ribeiro, I. P. Teixeira, J. Sasaki, Luciano Vieira de Araújo, P. H. Guerra, A. Florindo
{"title":"Smartphone apps for tracking physical activity and sedentary behavior: A criterion validity review","authors":"R. C. R. Prado, M. Knebel, E. H. Ribeiro, I. P. Teixeira, J. Sasaki, Luciano Vieira de Araújo, P. H. Guerra, A. Florindo","doi":"10.12820/rbafs.27e0270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Smartphone apps have been developed and investigated in validation studies for tracking human behavior such as physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB). However, as it is unclear whether these apps are valid for tracking PA and SB when compared to research-grade accelerometers, thus, this systematic review aimed to investigate the validity of smartphone apps for tracking PA and SB using the accelerometer as a criterion measure. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SportDiscus, and Scopus databases. The mean percentage difference (MPD) was used to evaluate criterion validity. Ten studies (n = 662) validating different apps using ActiGraph accelerometers as criteria measure (six were conducted in free-living conditions, two in laboratory conditions, and two in both conditions) were included for analyses. While four apps were considered valid for tracking PA, six were not valid or fully valid. The MPD analysis revealed that apps provide no valid scores for tracking PA measures (MPD = -12.6 – 37.7). The scarcity of studies investigating SB limits the tracking of the results on this behavior. Study designs, smartphone location, and exercise intensity tend to affect the accuracy of apps tracking PA; thus, the current review showed conflicting results among studies. This review shows that it is not possible to generalize the valid scores for all apps.","PeriodicalId":52945,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Atividade Fisica e Saude","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Atividade Fisica e Saude","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12820/rbafs.27e0270","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Smartphone apps have been developed and investigated in validation studies for tracking human behavior such as physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB). However, as it is unclear whether these apps are valid for tracking PA and SB when compared to research-grade accelerometers, thus, this systematic review aimed to investigate the validity of smartphone apps for tracking PA and SB using the accelerometer as a criterion measure. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SportDiscus, and Scopus databases. The mean percentage difference (MPD) was used to evaluate criterion validity. Ten studies (n = 662) validating different apps using ActiGraph accelerometers as criteria measure (six were conducted in free-living conditions, two in laboratory conditions, and two in both conditions) were included for analyses. While four apps were considered valid for tracking PA, six were not valid or fully valid. The MPD analysis revealed that apps provide no valid scores for tracking PA measures (MPD = -12.6 – 37.7). The scarcity of studies investigating SB limits the tracking of the results on this behavior. Study designs, smartphone location, and exercise intensity tend to affect the accuracy of apps tracking PA; thus, the current review showed conflicting results among studies. This review shows that it is not possible to generalize the valid scores for all apps.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
追踪身体活动和久坐行为的智能手机应用:一项标准有效性评估
智能手机应用程序已经开发出来,并在验证研究中进行了调查,用于跟踪人类行为,如身体活动(PA)和久坐行为(SB)。然而,与研究级加速度计相比,这些应用程序是否有效用于跟踪PA和SB尚不清楚,因此,本系统综述旨在以加速度计作为标准测量来调查智能手机应用程序跟踪PA和SB的有效性。系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、SportDiscus和Scopus数据库。采用平均百分比差(MPD)评价标准效度。10项研究(n = 662)验证了使用ActiGraph加速度计作为标准测量的不同应用程序(6项在自由生活条件下进行,2项在实验室条件下进行,2项在两种条件下进行),用于分析。虽然有四个应用程序被认为可以有效地跟踪PA,但有六个应用程序无效或完全有效。MPD分析显示,应用程序没有提供跟踪PA措施的有效分数(MPD = -12.6 - 37.7)。调查SB的研究的稀缺性限制了对这一行为结果的跟踪。研究设计、智能手机位置和运动强度倾向于影响应用程序跟踪PA的准确性;因此,目前的综述显示研究结果相互矛盾。这篇评论表明,不可能将所有应用的有效分数一概而论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Fatores associados aos comportamentos ativo e sedentário em adolescentes brasileiros: uma análise de redes Prática de atividade física ao ar livre na pandemia da COVID-19 entre professores do ensino público Projeto Vida Ativa Pelotas: Percepção das coordenadoras sobre a implantação dos núcleos no ano de 2019 Metodologia de utilização do Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes-MAPS na cidade de São Paulo Associação entre violência e prática de atividades físicas: uma análise bibliométrica da produção científica na Web of Science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1