Search

Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic, working from home (WFH) has emerged as a common alternative work environment, but the possible influence on daily physical behavior (PB) (i.e., physical activity (PA), sedentary behavior (SB)) remains unclear. This study aimed to examine daily associations between PB and the work environment (i.e., WFH, working at the office (WAO)), as well as to explore and identify patterns of PB within each work environment. An observational study using a dual-accelerometer system to continuously assess PB for at least 5 days was conducted. The sample consisted of 55 participants providing 276 days of assessment. Additional demographic, contextual, and psychological variables were measured via baseline questionnaire and several smartphone prompts per day. To analyze the effects of the work environment on PB, multilevel analyses were conducted. For the identification of patterns within each work environment, latent class trajectory modelling was applied. Associations between the work environment and various PA parameters were found, indicating that WFH has a negative effect on MVPA time, steps, and physical activity intensity (MET), but a positive effect on short PA bouts (≤5 min). No associations between the work environment and any SB parameter (i.e., SB time, SB breaks, SB bouts) were found. Latent class trajectory modelling revealed three MVPA patterns for days WFH, and two patterns for days WAO. Given the growing prevalence of WFH and the positive health effects associated with MVPA, daily-tailored solutions to enhance MPVA while WFH are urgently needed.

Background: Wearable technology is used by consumers and researchers worldwide for continuous activity monitoring in daily life. Results of high-quality laboratory-based validation studies enable us to make a guided decision on which study to rely on and which device to use. However, reviews in adults that focus on the quality of existing laboratory studies are missing. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of wearable validation studies with adults. Eligibility criteria were: (i) study under laboratory conditions with humans (age ≥ 18 years); (ii) validated device outcome must belong to one dimension of the 24-hour physical behavior construct (i.e., intensity, posture/activity type, and biological state); (iii) study protocol must include a criterion measure; (iv) study had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal. Studies were identified via a systematic search in five electronic databases as well as back- and forward citation searches. The risk of bias was assessed based on the QUADAS-2 tool with eight signaling questions. Results: Out of 13,285 unique search results, 545 published articles between 1994 and 2022 were included. Most studies (73.8% (N = 420)) validated an intensity measure outcome such as energy expenditure; only 14% (N = 80) and 12.2% (N = 70) of studies validated biological state or posture/activity type outcomes, respectively. Most protocols validated wearables in healthy adults between 18 and 65 years. Most wearables were only validated once. Further, we identified six wearables (i.e., ActiGraph GT3X+, ActiGraph GT9X, Apple Watch 2, Axivity AX3, Fitbit Charge 2, Fitbit, and GENEActiv) that had been used to validate outcomes from all three dimensions, but none of them were consistently ranked with moderate to high validity. Risk of bias assessment resulted in 4.4% (N = 24) of all studies being classified as “low risk”, while 16.5% (N = 90) were classified as “some concerns” and 79.1% (N = 431) as “high risk”. Conclusion

Purpose: To raise attention to the quality of published validation protocols while comparing (in)consistencies and providing an overview on wearables, and whether they show promise or not. Methods: Searches from five electronic databases were included concerning the following eligibility criteria: (a) laboratory conditions with humans (<18 years), (b) device outcome must belong to one dimension of the 24-hr physical behavior construct (i.e., intensity, posture/activity type outcomes, biological state), (c) must include a criterion measure, and (d) published in a peer-reviewed English language journal between 1980 and 2021. Results: Out of 13,285 unique search results, 123 articles were included. In 86 studies, children <13 years were recruited, whereas in 26 studies adolescents (13–18 years) were recruited. Most studies (73.2%) validated an intensity outcome such as energy expenditure; only 20.3% and 13.8% of studies validated biological state or posture/activity type outcomes, respectively. We identified 14 wearables that had been used to validate outcomes from two or three different dimensions. Most (n = 72) of the identified 88 wearables were only validated once. Risk of bias assessment resulted in 7.3% of studies being classified as “low risk,” 28.5% as “some concerns,” and 71.5% as “high risk.” Conclusion: Overall, laboratory validation studies of wearables are characterized by low methodological quality, large variability in design, and a focus on intensity. No identified wearable provides valid results across all three dimensions of the 24-hr physical behavior construct. Future research should more strongly aim at biological state and posture/activity type outcomes, and strive for standardized protocols embedded in a validation framework.

Background: Wearable technology is a leading fitness trend in the growing commercial industry and an established method for collecting 24-hour physical behavior data in research studies. High-quality free-living validation studies are required to enable both researchers and consumers to make guided decisions on which study to rely on and which device to use. However, reviews focusing on the quality of free-living validation studies in adults are lacking. Objective: This study aimed to raise researchers' and consumers' attention to the quality of published validation protocols while aiming to identify and compare specific consistencies or inconsistencies between protocols. We aimed to provide a comprehensive and historical overview of which wearable devices have been validated for which purpose and whether they show promise for use in further studies. Methods: Peer-reviewed validation studies from electronic databases, as well as backward and forward citation searches (1970 to July 2021), with the following, required indicators were included: protocol must include real-life conditions, outcome must belong to one dimension of the 24-hour physical behavior construct (intensity, posture or activity type, and biological state), the protocol must include a criterion measure, and study results must be published in English-language journals. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool with 9 questions separated into 4 domains (patient selection or study design, index measure, criterion measure, and flow and time). Results: Of the 13,285 unique search results, 222 (1.67%) articles were included. Most studies (153/237, 64.6%) validated an intensity measure outcome such as energy expenditure. However, only 19.8% (47/237) validated biological state and 15.6% (37/237) validated posture or activity-type outcomes. Across all studies, 163 different wearables were identified. Of these, 58.9% (96/163) were validated only once.