1. Establishing a Global Standard for Wearable Devices in Sport and Exercise Medicine: Perspectives from Academic and Industry Stakeholders
- Author
-
Dimakatso A. Ramagole, Gamze Gürsoy, Temiloluwa Prioleau, Julien S. Baker, Stephanie Griggs, Chiara Fossati, Laurie Ann Scher, Ioannis Vogiatzis, Nancy S. Redeker, Kumpei Tanisawa, Elias K. Spanakis, Robert Jarrin, Michael A. Busa, Sandra Rozenstoka, Dina Christina Janse van Rensburg, Lisa M. Fucito, Jason Liu, Bernd Wolfarth, Jeroen Swart, Andre Debruyne, Fabio Pigozzi, Mats Börjesson, Laura M. Nally, Xinxin Zhu, Walter Roberts, Robert A. Huggins, Norbert Bachl, Mark Gerstein, Matthew Stults-Kolehmainen, Borja Muniz-Pardos, Esmeralda Megally, Irina Zelenkova, Michael S. Businelle, Stuart A. Weinzimer, William Meyerson, Lauren A. Grieco, Allison E. Gaffey, José A. Casajús, Kate Lyden, A. González-Agüero, Konstantinos Angeloudis, Farzin Halabchi, Yannis P. Pitsiladis, Bobak J. Mortazavi, Garrett I. Ash, Dov Greenbaum, Robert Gregory, and Cynthia Brandt
- Subjects
Flexibility (engineering) ,Data collection ,Consensus ,business.industry ,media_common.quotation_subject ,Stakeholder ,Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation ,Public relations ,Sports Medicine ,J900 ,Competitive advantage ,Digital health ,C600 ,Article ,Wearable Electronic Devices ,Return on investment ,Humans ,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine ,Quality (business) ,Business ,Exercise ,Wearable technology ,media_common ,Sports - 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.
- Published
- 2021