HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
J Nurse Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

J Nurse Pract. 2017 January ; 13(1): 34–40. doi:10.1016/j.nurpra.2016.10.012.

Using Fitness Trackers in Clinical Research: What Nurse

Practitioners Need to Know
Lisa Cadmus-Bertram, Ph.D.
Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Abstract
Author Manuscript

Consumer-based wearable fitness trackers present a new array of opportunities and challenges to
nurse practitioners engaged in health promotion research. Key advantages include the ability to
provide continuous, objective, remote monitoring of physical activity and the potential to improve
the efficacy of physical activity interventions. This paper provides an overview of fitness trackers,
including their functions and accuracy, and addresses the following key issues to consider before
using trackers in research: (1) when to use a fitness tracker; (2) choosing a brand and model; (3)
encouraging good compliance; and (4) extracting and using the data.

Despite the well-documented benefits of physical activity, more than half of US adults self-
report not meeting the physical activity guidelines (usually summarized as 150 min/week of
moderate-to-vigorous intensity activity).1,2 Further, when research-grade accelerometers are
used to measure population-level physical activity, only 5% of US adults are found to be
Author Manuscript

meeting the guideline.3 Thus there is a widespread need for clinical research to understand
how physical activity relates to chronic disease management, healthy aging, and recovery
from major medical procedures, illnesses, and injuries. As the consumer market for fitness
trackers continues to grow, so does the interest among researchers and clinicians to leverage
these devices to improve healthcare and answer innovative research questions.4

Briefly, a fitness tracker is a small electronic device that uses an accelerometer – a tiny
instrument that measures acceleration forces – to assess physical activity. By measuring the
amount of motion adjusted for time, the tracker is able to determine the timing and patterns
of activity as well as some features of movement such as steps and intensity. Thus fitness
trackers generate far more detailed and useful information than is provided by traditional
step-counting pedometers. Fitness trackers are either clipped to the clothing or worn on the
Author Manuscript

wrist and users connect their tracker through a computer or smartphone. Most trackers
provide simple data on the device's display, with more detailed data available online or via
the app. It is worth noting that there are also many smartphone apps designed to track users’
physical activity level without the need for a fitness tracker. By taking advantage of the

Address: Lisa Cadmus-Bertram, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin – Madison, 2000 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53562,
[email protected], Phone: (608) 262-5946.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our
customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of
the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Cadmus-Bertram Page 2

accelerometer already built in to the smartphone, these essentially function in the same way
Author Manuscript

as a fitness tracker and can be a good choice for patients who keep their phone in a pocket or
clipped to their waistband all day.

Dimensions of behavior captured by fitness trackers

Fitness trackers and smartphone apps vary with respect to which components of physical
activity are measured. However all will measure the most basic component -- steps. Step
tracking remains a mainstay of physical activity promotion because it is simple and easy to
understand method for objectively self-monitoring one's activity level. Step counting is
particularly important for the most inactive patients (i.e., those who do no exercise at all)
because their entire activity level is reliant on basic ambulatory activities such as housework,
gardening, and walking for transportation. Steps are also an appealing and approachable
behavioral target for patients who may find exercise difficult or intimidating but are
Author Manuscript

amenable to setting modest daily step count goals. Thus step tracking can be an effective
way to introduce these individuals to a rewarding, positive habit of setting and achieving
goals around physical activity. All fitness trackers and apps will provide daily step count
data and most will allow users to track their progress towards a daily or weekly step goal.
Many devices, including all Fitbit models, allow users to specify this goal. Other devices
(e.g., Garmin vivofit) automatically choose an appropriate daily step count goal based on the
user's recent activity level. A default step goal is often 10,000 steps per day, which appears
to be sufficient for some health benefits and roughly translates to meeting the physical
activity guidelines (e.g., 30 min/day of brisk walking) plus normal daily ambulatory
movement.5 Lower step goals may be appropriate for individuals with poorer physical
functioning or chronic conditions while children and adolescents should accumulate
10,000-17,000 steps/day depending on age.6,7
Author Manuscript

Fitness trackers and apps also measure other components of physical activity such as
intensity (e.g., min/day spent in a certain intensity category), estimated energy expenditure
(calories burned), distance traveled, and elevation climbed. Several models also provide
heart rate monitoring and/or global positioning system (GPS) information. There are
tradeoffs regarding price and features; most importantly, those devices that provide heart rate
monitoring and GPS tend to cost more and may need to be recharged more frequently than
models without those features. In addition to measuring physical activity, most trackers are
designed to also measure sleep (e.g., total duration of sleep, sleep latency, and sleep quality).
Sleep and wake times are automatically detected using the device's algorithms, making data
collection effortless for the patient.

In addition to the data collected by the tracker itself, the websites/apps associated with many
Author Manuscript

trackers allow users to manually input data. This can be useful when an exercise session was
performed but the person forgot to wear the tracker or could not wear it due to the nature of
the activity (e.g., water-based activities). Individuals can also track caloric, macronutrient,
and micronutrient intake by logging foods and beverages. Many items are selected from a
large database; these tend to include simple whole foods (e.g., fruits and vegetables, milk,
cheese, nuts, meats) as well as packaged foods (e.g., yogurt, granola bars, candy) and menu
items from chain restaurants. Logging recipes cooked at home is somewhat more complex

J Nurse Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Cadmus-Bertram Page 3

since these must be either re-created manually or approximated based on a similar item that
Author Manuscript

is already in the database. Frequently consumed food combinations (e.g., a breakfast

consisting of oatmeal, skim milk, and a banana) can be stored for quick future entry. In
general, although dietary tracking is burdensome, it can provide valuable insights to those
patients trying to modify their eating habits or weight.

Fitness trackers and apps will also allow the user to track body weight, either through
manual entry, or by using a wi-fi enabled scale such as the Fitbit Aria or the Withings scale.
Wireless scales are identical in appearance to a standard digital bathroom scale but will
upload the user's weight and estimated body composition (percent body fat) to the app.
Given evidence suggesting the benefit of daily weighing, these scales may have promise for
assisting in weight management efforts.8

Viewing physical activity data collected by activity trackers

Author Manuscript

Fitness trackers vary with respect the amount and type of information provided on the device
display. The Jawbone UP series, for example, consists of a colorful silicone wristband or
clip-on device with no display at all. A vibration function can be used for some activity-
related alerts but the user must access the accompanying smartphone app to actually view
their data. Most other trackers display steps along with some selection of other information
(e.g., calories burned, distance walked). The information on the display is a running total of
activity accrued on that day only. At midnight, the display resets to zero (although the data
will be retained until the device is synced). Therefore, in order to view the most useful
information about progress towards weekly goals and trends over time, individuals must
access the website or app. There, the user will have a page or “dashboard” showing a
summary of data, typically both from the current day as well as information about activity
Author Manuscript

over time. Data are presented using simple charts, graphs, and progress bars. Often, users
can select what type of information they wish to see, or how they would like to see the
information presented.

Are fitness trackers accurate?

A number of research teams have conducted validation studies to determine the accuracy of
fitness trackers. This endeavor is complicated by three factors: (1) The algorithms used by
the manufacturer to aggregate the raw accelerometer data into usable variables (e.g.,
minutes/day spent in activity) are often not available; (2) New fitness tracker models are
released frequently, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date body of literature on current
models; and (3) the wide variety of features (e.g., steps, intensity, energy expenditure, sleep)
renders it impractical to evaluate all dimensions of a tracker's accuracy. Nevertheless, several
Author Manuscript

studies have demonstrated that fitness trackers and smartphones are sufficiently accurate for
measurement of steps.9-11 Hip-worn trackers appear to be the most consistently accurate for
assessment of steps because the placement facilitates the detection of ambulatory movement.
Wrist-worn trackers have more measurement error but are still sufficient for health
promotion purposes. The added convenience of a wrist-worn device makes this a favorable
tradeoff for many individuals. Smartphone apps can be just as precise as hip-worn trackers

J Nurse Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Cadmus-Bertram Page 4

but their accuracy relies on being worn on the body (e.g., in a hip pocket) for the entire day,
Author Manuscript

even while exercising. Thus apps are not optimal for many individuals.

Several studies have also tested the accuracy of trackers for the assessment of activity
intensity, energy expenditure, and sleep. While much more data is needed in this area, the
literature currently suggests that trackers are perhaps less accurate for energy expenditure
and sleep than for steps. An excellent summary of the specifications for and validity of Fitbit
and Jawbone models was provided by Evenson and colleagues in 2015, although due to the
rapid evolution of the fitness tracker industry, some newer models are now available as
well.10 Overall, validity data for wearables are fairly encouraging. Evenson, et al. reported
strong validity for steps at typical walking speeds, although accuracy declines somewhat at
very slow walking speeds as well as during running. The authors also reported high inter-
device reliability for some of the most common tracker models. Very little information as yet
is available regarding important dimensions of activity other than steps – only a few studies
Author Manuscript

have examined physical activity intensity and only one tested accuracy for distance. Some
newer models use pattern recognition algorithms that allow the device to categorize bouts of
activity by type (e.g., running, cycling). No validity data are as yet available for that feature.

Clearly, a single sensor cannot capture movement of all parts of the body, therefore no
fitness tracker will provide a perfectly accurate measurement of activity. Current models are,
however, sufficiently accurate to provide patients with the feedback they need to set goals
and monitor progress. Thus nurse practitioners can play two important roles in
communicating with patients. First, they can encourage patients to use fitness trackers in
conjunction with goal-setting and frequent review of progress. Second, they can educate
patients by explaining that tracker data does not need to be 100% accurate in order to be
quite helpful for behavior change purposes.
Author Manuscript

Types of fitness trackers

There are a wide and growing array of fitness trackers on the market and leading
manufacturers continuously update and expand their product lines. Major manufacturers
include Fitbit, Garmin, and Jawbone. Trackers vary with respect to style (wrist-worn vs.
clip-on), battery type (rechargeable vs. coin cell), price (most are between $50-300), and
features (heart rate monitoring, GPS, activity recognition). Other factors that may be
important to some consumers include system requirements (e.g., Jawbone trackers require a
smartphone or table whereas most other brands can be used with a computer) and water
resistance.

Using fitness trackers in research

Author Manuscript

Due to their user-friendliness and ability to provide objective continuous monitoring, fitness
trackers are an appealing option to many researchers interested in promoting or measuring
physical activity. They are not, of course, appropriate for all contexts. Four important
considerations are described here: (1) When to use a fitness tracker; (2) Choosing a brand
and model; (3) Encouraging good compliance; and (4) Extracting and using the data. A
detailed list of considerations is presented in Table 1.

J Nurse Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Cadmus-Bertram Page 5

When to use a fitness tracker

Author Manuscript

Fitness trackers serve two basic research functions – to measure activity and to promote
activity.12,13 Before using a fitness tracker in research, it is important to have a clear
understanding of which of these functions (or both) the investigator is seeking. While
research-grade accelerometers like the ActiGraph (Penscacola, FL) are still the gold
standard for physical activity measurement, fitness trackers are an acceptable alternative in
some contexts. They are most appropriate for use studies in which the key outcome is either
steps or is activity that occurs during ambulatory movement. Researchers may also choose to
use a fitness tracker in situations where the use of ActiGraphs is prohibitive due to cost or
lack of training in accelerometer processing and analysis. Finally, fitness trackers are an
excellent – and essentially the only – choice for studies that involve continuous monitoring
of patients over periods of time longer than a week or two.
Author Manuscript

With respect to their use as an intervention tool fitness trackers can be a good choice for
health promotion studies, assuming the patient population has a high level of broadband
and/or smartphone penetrance and will be able to use the technology. Patients who are less
technologically savvy may still have good results with a fitness tracker as long as they
receive sufficient initial training and have access to ongoing support from the clinical or
research team. Multiple studies have shown that fitness trackers are feasible and acceptable
including in middle-aged and older populations.13-15 However, is important to recognize that
for most patients, simply providing a fitness tracker will not result in substantial, lasting
changes in activity level.16 Other determinants of activity – such as beliefs, attitudes,
perceive barriers, and lack of knowledge, social support, and self-efficacy – must still be
addressed. The fitness tracker is a tool to assist with self-monitoring, one of the most
effective strategies for long-term behavioral change and data show that many trackers align
well with concepts used in behavioral science.17 However the greatest promise for health
Author Manuscript

promotion likely relies on the combination of the wearable device with one or more other
intervention components.

Of course, despite the benefits of fitness trackers, there are still many research questions that
are better served by other forms of measurement and intervention. For example, a step-
counting intervention in a very large sample with low access to technology would be better
served by a traditional pedometer than a fitness tracker. There are also some concerns about
the potential for wearables to exacerbate socioeconomic health inequalities.18 Finally, it is
important to consider potential HIPAA or privacy concerns related to gathering data using
fitness trackers.19 These can be usually be navigated without excessive difficulty but are
important to identify prior to engaging in research. Thus nurse practitioners should carefully
consider their patient group, research question, and local resources in order to determine
Author Manuscript

whether a wearable sensor will be useful and appropriate.

Choosing a brand and model

Researchers may wish to try out several different trackers in order to determine what best
suits the needs of a particular project or study. For example, clip-on trackers appear to be
more accurate than wrist-worn trackers, but require additional vigilance on the part of the
participant (must be switched each time the person changes clothes, kept out of the laundry,

J Nurse Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Cadmus-Bertram Page 6

etc.). Trackers with no display may be suitable for studies in which the researchers are
Author Manuscript

seeking a blinded assessment tool but are likely to be less effective for health promotion
interventions because the patient cannot get much feedback without opening the app.
Trackers that use a watch battery (such as the Garmin) remove one source of non-
compliance because patients do not need to charge the battery. A balance of features,
usability, and cost will usually be sufficient to identify the appropriate tracker.

Ensuring good compliance

There are a number of best practices that can be taken to facilitate a good user experience for
patients and to maximize the adherence to using the tracker. First, it is recommended that
patients receive some initial training, tailored to the population. This could include hands-on
training, printed handbooks, or setting up user accounts for the patient ahead of time.
Expectations about how the tracker should be used must be clearly communicated. If it is
Author Manuscript

important to wear the tracker during all waking hours, this can be reinforced with a handout
or other materials. Troubleshooting information and contact information for questions
should be provided.

Extracting and using the data

Many clinicians and investigators wish to obtain the data collected directly by the tracker.
Many manufacturers offer an Application Program Interface (API) to assist programmers
with extracting and using their data. However this requires personnel to do the coding, which
is not practical in most clinical research contexts. An easier option is to use a third-party
application designed to extract and process tracker data for use by researchers. The most
common of these is Fitabase (San Diego, CA), which offers a web-based application to
aggregate and process Fitbit data. This application is designed to be easy to use and requires
Author Manuscript

no special expertise. Thus it is relatively straightforward to obtain datasets of Fitbit data

ready for analysis in any statistical package. However these datasets will contain activity
data only (e.g., steps, intensity, HR) but will not include other behaviors logged manually by
the participant, such as food intake or blood pressure.

Conclusions
To summarize, wearable technologies play an increasing role in patients’ lives and may have
substantial utility for clinical research. Previous studies have demonstrated that fitness
trackers are highly acceptable and feasible for use in a variety of populations. Although the
integration of consumer-based wearable technologies into health research is still new, the
field is evolving rapidly. Nurse practitioners and other clinicians are likely to receive
questions from patients who are interested in using trackers for physical activity or weight
Author Manuscript

management. Clinicians should be prepared to provide basic information about how fitness
trackers work and to educate patients that trackers are a tool to assist with self-monitoring,
goal-setting, and motivation. Patients may benefit from a reminder that the tracker alone will
not be sufficient to initiate and sustain behavior change but that it can provide substantial
assistance in helping the patient to understand his or her current activity level and track
progress over time. Patients also need to understand that trackers are generally accurate
enough to be useful for these purposes. Thus they are ideally suited for use in an iterative

J Nurse Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Cadmus-Bertram Page 7

process of behavior change in which patients observe their current level of activity, set a
Author Manuscript

somewhat higher goal, achieve and sustain that goal, and repeat this cycle until the eventual
goal is reached.

Future research will continue to provide more detailed data regarding the validity and
reliability of various features on specific tracker models, methods for incorporating
wearables into behavioral interventions, the use of wearables to enhance “just-in-time”
interventions (JITAI's),20 the degree to which consumer-based products encompass
evidence-based behavior change techniques,21 and best practices for integrating data streams
with electronic health records (EHRs) and clinical care. Despite some limitations, wearable
trackers and smartphone apps present an exciting new era in physical activity promotion and
research.

Acknowledgments
Author Manuscript

Funding: Dr. Cadmus-Bertram is supported by the National Cancer Institute (1K07CA178870).

References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adult participation in recommended levels of physical
activity--United States, 2001 and 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 54(47):1208–1212.
2. US Department of Health and Human Services. [January 15, 2016] 2008 Physical Activity
Guidelines for Americans. 2008. http://www.health.gov/PAGuidelines.
3. Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M. Physical activity in the
United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40(1):181–188. [PubMed:
18091006]
4. Steinhubl SR, Muse ED, Topol EJ. Can mobile health technologies transform health care? JAMA.
2013; 310(22):2395–2396. [PubMed: 24158428]
Author Manuscript

5. Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Brown WJ, et al. How many steps/day are enough? For adults. Int J
Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011; 8:79. [PubMed: 21798015]
6. Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Aoyagi Y, et al. How many steps/day are enough? For older adults and
special populations. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011; 8:80. [PubMed: 21798044]
7. Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Beets MW, et al. How many steps/day are enough? For children and
adolescents. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011; 8:78. [PubMed: 21798014]
8. Shieh C, Knisely MR, Clark D, Carpenter JS. Self-weighing in weight management interventions: A
systematic review of literature. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2016; 10(5):493–519. [PubMed: 26896865]
9. Case MA, Burwick HA, Volpp KG, Patel MS. Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable
devices for tracking physical activity data. JAMA. 2015; 313(6):625–626. [PubMed: 25668268]
10. Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of
consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015; 12(1):159. [PubMed:
26684758]
11. Hekler EB, Buman MP, Grieco L, et al. Validation of physical activity tracking via Android
Author Manuscript

smartphones compared to ActiGraph accelerometer: Laboratory-based and free-living validation

studies. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015; 3(2):e36. [PubMed: 25881662]
12. Cadmus Bertram LA, Marcus BH, Patterson RE, Morey BL, Parker BA. Use of the Fitbit to
measure adherence to a physical activity intervention among overweight/obese, postmenopausal
women. Journal of mHealth and uHealth. 2015; 3(2):e36.
13. Cadmus-Bertram L, Marcus BH, Patterson RE, Parker BA, Morey BL. Randomized Trial of a
Fitbit-Based Physical Activity Intervention for Women. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 49(3):414–8.
[PubMed: 26071863]

J Nurse Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Cadmus-Bertram Page 8

14. Hartman SJ, Natarajan L, Palmer BW, Parker B, Patterson RE, Sears DD. Impact of increasing
physical activity on cognitive functioning in breast cancer survivors: Rationale and study design of
Author Manuscript

Memory & Motion. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015; 45(Pt B):371–376. [PubMed: 26427563]
15. McMahon SK, Lewis B, Oakes M, Guan W, Wyman JF, Rothman AJ. Older adults' experiences
using a commercially available monitor to self-track their physical activity. JMIR Mhealth
Uhealth. 2016; 4(2):e35. [PubMed: 27076486]
16. Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior
change. JAMA. 2015; 313(5):459–460. [PubMed: 25569175]
17. Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating
and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression. Health Psychol. 2009; 28(6):690–701.
[PubMed: 19916637]
18. Allen LN, Christie GP. The emergence of personalized health technology. J Med Internet Res.
2016; 18(5):e99. [PubMed: 27165944]
19. Filkins BL, Kim JY, Roberts B, et al. Privacy and security in the era of digital health: what should
translational researchers know and do about it? Am J Transl Res. 2016; 8(3):1560–1580.
[PubMed: 27186282]
Author Manuscript

20. Riley WT, Rivera DE, Atienza AA, Nilsen W, Allison SM, Mermelstein R. Health behavior models
in the age of mobile interventions: are our theories up to the task? Transl. Behav. Med. 2011; 1(1):
53–71. [PubMed: 21796270]
21. Mercer K, Li M, Giangregorio L, Burns C, Grindrod K. Behavior Change Techniques Present in
Wearable Activity Trackers: A Critical Analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016; 4(2):e40.
[PubMed: 27122452]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Nurse Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Cadmus-Bertram Page 9

Table 1

Considerations when using fitness trackers for measurement and/or intervention in research.
Author Manuscript

Features
• Which data collection features are necessary or just preferred? Are there any undesirable features? If so, can these be customized (turned on or
off?) to suit the focus of the study?

• What goal-setting features are available? Can goals be set for the behaviors of interest? Are they automatically set by the tracker or can they
be specified by users?

• Are there social features (such as adding “friends”) and if so, will this be used in the study?

• Is a clip-on or wrist-worn tracker more suitable for the study?

• Is a water resistant tracker necessary?

On-device electronic display

• For measurement studies, minimal/no feedback n may be preferable (to minimize reactivity)

• For intervention studies, more detailed feedback may be useful

Patient characteristics
Author Manuscript

• Do they have broadband access and/or a smartphone? If not, how will this be provided?

• Do they have the technological skills and interest to learn to use the tracker? If technological skills are lacking, could training or assistance
with device set-up be provided?

• Will the specific tracker model is likely to appeal to this population? Is the app easy to learn?

• How active is the patient population? For those who engage mostly in very low-intensity activity (slow walking without a distinct gait), a clip-
on tracker worn at the hip may be more sensitive than a wrist-worn tracker.

• How diligent are patients likely to be with respect to wearing the tracker and charging the battery? If there are substantial concerns, a wrist-
worn tracker with a coin cell battery may be recommended.

Motivational and behavioral considerations

• For intervention studies: What other motivational components or support will patients need in order to make the prescribed behavioral
changes? Do not rely on tracker alone.

• For all studies: How will participants be educated to maximize compliance with wearing the activity tracker, keeping the battery charged (if
applicable), and syncing the device regularly?
Author Manuscript

Data extraction and analysis

• What, if any, data is needed from the device/app itself?

• How will these data be extracted?

• How will the data be cleaned and processed? Is there a third party who can offer this service?
• How will researchers handle data that appears to reflect partial wear days? Unless compliance is uniformly high, there will be a need to correct
for wear time in order to produce meaningful data.

Privacy considerations
• Are there any privacy issues or HIPAA concerns that need to be addressed?

Cost
• What resources are available?

• Can costs be lowered by staggering participant enrollment and reusing trackers?

Author Manuscript

J Nurse Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.