Background: The relationships between alcohol marketing exposure, alcohol use, and purchase have been widely studied. However, prospective studies examining the causal relationships in real-world settings using mobile health tools are limited.
Objective: We used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to examine both the within-person- and between-person-level effects of alcohol marketing exposure on any alcohol use, amount of alcohol use, any alcohol purchase, and frequency of alcohol purchase among university students.
Methods: From January to June 2020, we conducted a prospective cohort study via EMA among university students in Hong Kong who reported current drinking. Over 14 consecutive days, each participant completed 5 fixed-interval, signal-contingent EMAs daily via a smartphone app. Each EMA asked about the number and types of alcohol marketing exposures, the amount and types of alcohol used, and whether any alcohol was purchased, all within the past 3 hours. We used 2-part models, including multilevel logistic regressions and multilevel gamma regressions, to examine if the number of alcohol marketing exposure was associated with subsequent alcohol use and alcohol purchase.
Results: A total of 49 students participated, with 33% (16/49) being male. The mean age was 22.6 (SD 2.6) years. They completed 2360 EMAs (completion rate: 2360/3430, 68.8%). Participants reported exposure to alcohol marketing in 5.9% (140/2360), alcohol use in 6.1% (145/2360), and alcohol purchase in 2.4% (56/2360) of all the EMAs. At the between-person level, exposure to more alcohol marketing predicted a higher likelihood of alcohol use (adjusted odd ratio [AOR]=3.51, 95% CI 1.29-9.54) and a higher likelihood of alcohol purchase (AOR=4.59, 95% CI 1.46-14.49) the following day. Exposure to more alcohol marketing did not increase the amount of alcohol use or frequency of alcohol purchases the following day in participants who used or purchased alcohol. At the within-person level, exposure to more alcohol marketing was not associated with a higher likelihood of alcohol use, amount of alcohol use, higher likelihood of alcohol purchase, or frequency of alcohol purchases the following day (all Ps>.05). Each additional exposure to alcohol marketing within 1 week predicted an increase of 0.85 alcoholic drinks consumed in the following week (adjusted B=0.85, 95% CI 0.09-1.61). On days of reporting alcohol use, the 3 measures for alcohol marketing receptivity were not associated with more alcohol use or purchase (all Ps>.05).
Conclusions: By using EMA, we provided the first evidence for the effect of alcohol marketing exposure on initiating alcohol use and purchase in current-drinking university students. Our findings provide evidence of the regulation of alcohol marketing for the reduction of alcohol use and purchase among young adults.
Background: Wearable activity trackers, including fitness bands and smartwatches, offer the potential for disease detection by monitoring physiological parameters. However, their accuracy as specific disease diagnostic tools remains uncertain.
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate whether wearable activity trackers can be used to detect disease and medical events.
Methods: Ten electronic databases were searched for studies published from inception to April 1, 2023. Studies were eligible if they used a wearable activity tracker to diagnose or detect a medical condition or event (eg, falls) in free-living conditions in adults. Meta-analyses were performed to assess the overall area under the curve (%), accuracy (%), sensitivity (%), specificity (%), and positive predictive value (%). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess device type (Fitbit, Oura ring, and mixed). The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.
Results: A total of 28 studies were included, involving a total of 1,226,801 participants (age range 28.6-78.3). In total, 16 (57%) studies used wearables for diagnosis of COVID-19, 5 (18%) studies for atrial fibrillation, 3 (11%) studies for arrhythmia or abnormal pulse, 3 (11%) studies for falls, and 1 (4%) study for viral symptoms. The devices used were Fitbit (n=6), Apple watch (n=6), Oura ring (n=3), a combination of devices (n=7), Empatica E4 (n=1), Dynaport MoveMonitor (n=2), Samsung Galaxy Watch (n=1), and other or not specified (n=2). For COVID-19 detection, meta-analyses showed a pooled area under the curve of 80.2% (95% CI 71.0%-89.3%), an accuracy of 87.5% (95% CI 81.6%-93.5%), a sensitivity of 79.5% (95% CI 67.7%-91.3%), and specificity of 76.8% (95% CI 69.4%-84.1%). For atrial fibrillation detection, pooled positive predictive value was 87.4% (95% CI 75.7%-99.1%), sensitivity was 94.2% (95% CI 88.7%-99.7%), and specificity was 95.3% (95% CI 91.8%-98.8%). For fall detection, pooled sensitivity was 81.9% (95% CI 75.1%-88.1%) and specificity was 62.5% (95% CI 14.4%-100%).
Conclusions: Wearable activity trackers show promise in disease detection, with notable accuracy in identifying atrial fibrillation and COVID-19. While these findings are encouraging, further research and improvements are required to enhance their diagnostic precision and applicability.
Trial registration: Prospero CRD42023407867; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=407867.
Background: Physical activity (PA) plays a crucial role in health care, providing benefits in the prevention and management of many noncommunicable diseases. Wearable activity trackers (WATs) provide an opportunity to monitor and promote PA in various health care settings.
Objective: This study aimed to develop a consensus-based framework for the optimal use of WATs in health care.
Methods: A 4-round Delphi survey was conducted, involving a panel (n=58) of health care professionals, health service managers, and researchers. Round 1 used open-response questions to identify overarching themes. Rounds 2 and 3 used 9-point Likert scales to refine participants' opinions and establish consensus on key factors related to WAT use in health care, including metrics, device characteristics, clinical populations and settings, and software considerations. Round 3 also explored barriers and mitigating strategies to WAT use in clinical settings. Insights from Rounds 1-3 informed a draft checklist designed to guide a systematic approach to WAT adoption in health care. In Round 4, participants evaluated the draft checklist's clarity, utility, and appropriateness.
Results: Participation rates for rounds 1 to 4 were 76% (n=44), 74% (n=43), 74% (n=43), and 66% (n=38), respectively. The study found a strong interest in using WATs across diverse clinical populations and settings. Key metrics (step count, minutes of PA, and sedentary time), device characteristics (eg, easy to charge, comfortable, waterproof, simple data access, and easy to navigate and interpret data), and software characteristics (eg, remote and wireless data access, access to multiple patients' data) were identified. Various barriers to WAT adoption were highlighted, including device-related, patient-related, clinician-related, and system-level issues. The findings culminated in a 12-item draft checklist for using WATs in health care, with all 12 items endorsed for their utility, clarity, and appropriateness in Round 4.
Conclusions: This study underscores the potential of WATs in enhancing patient care across a broad spectrum of health care settings. While the benefits of WATs are evident, successful integration requires addressing several challenges, from technological developments to patient education and clinician training. Collaboration between WAT manufacturers, researchers, and health care professionals will be pivotal for implementing WATs in the health care sector.