Agreement between Apple Watch and Actical step counts in a community setting: The Framingham Heart Study (Preprint)

Author:

Spartano NicoleORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Step counting is comparable among many research-grade and consumer-grade accelerometers in laboratory settings, but few studies have compared step count measurement among devices outside of the laboratory, in a community setting.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare agreement between Actical and Apple Watch step-counting in a community setting.

METHODS

Among Third Generation Framingham Heart Study participants (n=3486), we examined agreement of step-counting between those who wore a consumer-grade (Apple Watch Series 0) and research-grade accelerometer (Actical) on the same day(s). Secondarily, we examined agreement during each hour when both devices were worn to account for differences in wear time between devices.

RESULTS

We studied 523 participants (n=3223 person-days, mean age 51.7 years, 57% women). Between devices, we observed modest correlation (intraclass correlation [ICC]=0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.54, 0.59), poor continuous agreement (29.7% of days having steps counts with ≤15% difference), a mean difference of 499 steps/day higher count by Actical, and wide limits of agreement, roughly +/-9000 steps/day. However, devices showed stronger agreement in identifying who meets various step/day threshold (e.g. at 8000 steps/day, kappa coefficient=0.49), for which devices were concordant for 74.8% of participants. In secondary analyses, of hours during which both devices were worn (456 participants, 18760 person-hours), the correlation was much stronger (ICC=0.86, 95% CI=0.85, 0.86), but continuous agreement remained poor (27.3% of hours having step counts with ≤15% difference) between devices and was slightly worse for those with mobility limitations or obesity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our investigation suggests poor overall agreement between steps counted by the Actical and Apple Watch devices, with stronger agreement in discriminating who meets certain step thresholds. The impact of these challenges may be minimized if accelerometers are used by individuals to determine whether they are meeting physical activity guidelines or tracking step counts.

Publisher

JMIR Publications Inc.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3