Accepted for/Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Date Submitted: Apr 27, 2022
Date Accepted: Sep 16, 2022
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
How well can your smartphone measure your physical activity levels? A systematic review of the measurement properties of smartphone approaches to assess physical activity in healthy young people.
ABSTRACT
Background:
Physical inactivity is a preventable risk factor for several chronic diseases and one of the driving forces behind the growing global burden of disease. Recent evidence has shown that interventions using mobile smartphone applications (apps) can promote a significant increase in physical activity (PA) levels. However, the accuracy and reliability of using apps is unknown.
Objective:
The aim of our review is to determine the accuracy and reliability of using mobile apps to measure PA levels in young people. We conducted a systematic review guided by PRISMA.
Methods:
Studies published from 2007 to 2020 were sourced from eight databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Library (Wiley), PsychINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), Web of Science (Clarivate), SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost), and IEEE Xplore Digital Library database). Studies conducted in young people, aged 10-24 years without chronic illness that evaluated a mobile app’s ability to measure PA. Primary outcomes include validity, reliability and/or responsiveness of the measurement approach. Duplicate screening was conducted for eligibility, data extraction and assessing the risk of bias. Results are reported as a systematic review. The main outcome measures assessed were: total PA time (mins/day or mins/week), total moderate-vigorous PA per week, daily step count, intensity measure (heart rate), and frequency measure (days per week).
Results:
Of the 149 identified studies, five met inclusion criteria (n=322 participants, 58% female; mean age 14±3 years). Three studies measured criterion validity and compared PA measured via apps against an Actigraph accelerometer. The two studies that reported on construct validity reported a significant difference between self-reported PA and the objective measure. Only one of the five apps examined is available to the public, and though this app was highly accepted by young people, the app recorded PA to be significantly different to participants’ self-reported PA.
Conclusions:
Overall, few studies assess the reliability, validity and responsiveness of mobile apps to measure PA in healthy young people, with studies typically only reporting on one measurement property. Of the three studies that measured validity, all concluded mobile phones to be an acceptable and valid tool. More research is needed into the validity and reliability of smart-phone apps to measure PA levels in this population, as well as populations with other characteristics, including age groups and those with chronic disease. Clinical Trial: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019122242.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.