Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers in Laboratory and Free-Living Settings for Patients With Chronic Pain: Criterion Validity Study

Veronica Sjöberg, Jens Westergren, Andreas Monnier, Riccardo Lo Martire, Maria Hagströmer, Björn Olov Äng, Linda Vixner, Veronica Sjöberg, Jens Westergren, Andreas Monnier, Riccardo Lo Martire, Maria Hagströmer, Björn Olov Äng, Linda Vixner

Abstract

Background: Physical activity is evidently a crucial part of the rehabilitation process for patients with chronic pain. Modern wrist-worn activity tracking devices seemingly have a great potential to provide objective feedback and assist in the adoption of healthy physical activity behavior by supplying data of energy expenditure expressed as metabolic equivalent of task units (MET). However, no studies of any wrist-worn activity tracking devices' have examined criterion validity in estimating energy expenditure, heart rate, or step count in patients with chronic pain.

Objective: The aim was to determine the criterion validity of wrist-worn activity tracking devices for estimations of energy expenditure, heart rate, and step count in a controlled laboratory setting and free-living settings for patients with chronic pain.

Methods: In this combined laboratory and field validation study, energy expenditure, heart rate, and step count were simultaneously estimated by a wrist-worn activity tracker (Fitbit Versa), indirect calorimetry (Jaeger Oxycon Pro), and a research-grade hip-worn accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X) during treadmill walking at 3 speeds (3.0 km/h, 4.5 km/h, and 6.0 km/h) in the laboratory setting. Energy expenditure and step count were also estimated by the wrist-worn activity tracker in free-living settings for 72 hours. The criterion validity of each measure was determined using intraclass and Spearman correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and mean absolute percentage error. An analysis of variance was used to determine whether there were any significant systematic differences between estimations.

Results: A total of 42 patients (age: 25-66 years; male: 10/42, 24%; female: 32/42, 76%), living with chronic pain (duration, in years: mean 9, SD 6.72) were included. At baseline, their mean pain intensity was 3.5 (SD 1.1) out of 6 (Multidimensional Pain Inventory, Swedish version). Results showed that the wrist-worn activity tracking device (Fitbit Versa) systematically overestimated energy expenditure when compared to the criterion standard (Jaeger Oxycon Pro) and the relative criterion standard (ActiGraph GT3X). Poor agreement and poor correlation were shown between Fitbit Versa and both Jaeger Oxycon Pro and ActiGraph GT3X for estimated energy expenditure at all treadmill speeds. Estimations of heart rate demonstrated poor to fair agreement during laboratory-based treadmill walks. For step count, the wrist-worn devices showed fair agreement and fair correlation at most treadmill speeds. In free-living settings; however, the agreement for step count between the wrist-worn device and waist-worn accelerometer was good, and the correlation was excellent.

Conclusions: The wrist-worn device systematically overestimated energy expenditure and showed poor agreement and correlation compared to the criterion standard (Jaeger Oxycon Pro) and the relative criterion standard (ActiGraph GT3X), which needs to be considered when used clinically. Step count measured with a wrist-worn device, however, seemed to be a valid estimation, suggesting that future guidelines could include such variables in this group with chronic pain.

Keywords: chronic pain; energy expenditure; heart rate; pain; physical activity; rehabilitation; step count; validity; wearable; wearable devices.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Veronica Sjöberg, Jens Westergren, Andreas Monnier, Riccardo Lo Martire, Maria Hagströmer, Björn Olov Äng, Linda Vixner. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 12.01.2021.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bland-Altman plot visualizing agreement of energy expenditure (MET) estimated by Fitbit Versa and criterion measurement Jaeger Oxycon Pro during overall treadmill walk. The middle green line shows the mean difference (bias) between devices. The dashed lines indicate upper (+1.96 SD) and lower (–1.96 SD) limits of agreement and the black line represents the regression line illustrating association between estimations.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland-Altman plot visualizing agreement of heartrate estimated by Fitbit Versa and criterion measurement Jaeger Oxycon Pro during overall treadmill walk. The middle green line shows the mean difference (bias) between devices. The dashed lines indicate upper (+1.96 SD) and lower (–1.96 SD) limits of agreement and the black line represents the regression line illustrating association between estimations.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bland-Altman plot visualizing agreement of energy expenditure (MET) estimated by Fitbit Versa and relative criterion measurement ActiGraph GT3X during overall treadmill walk. The middle green line shows the mean difference (bias) between devices. The dashed lines indicate upper (+1.96 SD) and lower (–1.96 SD) limits of agreement and the black line represents the regression line illustrating association between estimations.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Bland-Altman plot visualizing agreement of step count estimated by Fitbit Versa and relative criterion measurement ActiGraph GT3X during overall treadmill walk. The middle green line shows the mean difference (bias) between devices. The dashed lines indicate upper (+1.96 SD) and lower (–1.96 SD) limits of agreement and the black line represents the regression line illustrating association between estimations.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Bland-Altman plot visualizing agreement of step count estimated by Fitbit Versa and relative criterion measurement ActiGraph GT3X during free-living. The middle green line shows the mean difference (bias) between devices. The dashed lines indicate upper (+1.96 SD) and lower (–1.96 SD) limits of agreement and the black line represents the regression line illustrating association between estimations.

References

    1. IASP terminology. International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) [2020-08-18]. .
    1. Merskey H, Bogduk N. Classification of Chronic Pain. Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definitions of Pain Terms. Seattle: IASP Press; 1994. The present classification; pp. 11–11.
    1. Geneen LJ, Moore RA, Clarke C, Martin D, Colvin LA, Smith BH. Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 24;4:CD011279. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011279.pub3.
    1. Piercy KL, Troiano RP. Physical activity guidelines for Americans from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018 Nov;11(11):e005263. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005263.
    1. Warburton DER, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of physical activity: a systematic review of current systematic reviews. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2017 Sep;32(5):541–556. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000437.
    1. Ambrose KR, Golightly YM. Physical exercise as non-pharmacological treatment of chronic pain: why and when. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology. 2015 Feb;29(1):120–130. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2015.04.022.
    1. Gatchel RJ, McGeary DD, McGeary CA, Lippe B. Interdisciplinary chronic pain management: past, present, and future. Am Psychol. 2014;69(2):119–30. doi: 10.1037/a0035514.
    1. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, O'Brien WL, Bassett DR, Schmitz KH, Emplaincourt PO, Jacobs DR, Leon AS. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Sep;32(9 Suppl):S498–504.
    1. Shepard R, Tudor-Locke C. A history of physical activity measurement in epidemiology. In: Shephard Roy J, Tudor-Locke Catrine., editors. The objective monitoring of physical activity: Contributions of Accelerometry to Epidemiology, Exercise, Science and Rehabilitation. The Objective Monitoring of Physical Activity: Contributions of Accelerometry to Epidemiology, Exercise Science and Rehabilitation. 1st edition. Switzerlandpringer International Publishing; 2016. pp. 39–83.
    1. Wright SP, Hall Brown Tyish S, Collier SR, Sandberg K. How consumer physical activity monitors could transform human physiology research. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2017 Mar 01;312(3):R358–R367. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00349.2016.
    1. Bai Y, Welk GJ, Nam YH, Lee JA, Lee J, Kim Y, Meier NF, Dixon PM. Comparison of consumer and research monitors under semistructured settings. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Jul 6; doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000727.
    1. Ferguson T, Rowlands AV, Olds T, Maher C. The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:42. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0201-9.
    1. Brickwood K, Watson G, O'Brien J, Williams AD. Consumer-based wearable activity trackers increase physical activity participation: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Apr 12;7(4):e11819. doi: 10.2196/11819.
    1. Le Hello C, Trombert B, Morel A, Chieh A, Brouard B, Boissier C. Performance analysis of walking of 10,000 regular users of a connected activity tracker. J Med Vasc. 2018 Jul;43(4):231–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmv.2018.04.001.
    1. Almalki M, Gray K, Sanchez FM. The use of self-quantification systems for personal health information: big data management activities and prospects. Health Inf Sci Syst. 2015;3(Suppl 1 HISA Big Data in Biomedicine and Healthcare 2013 Con):S1. doi: 10.1186/2047-2501-3-S1-S1.
    1. Lobelo F, Kelli HM, Tejedor SC, Pratt M, McConnell MV, Martin SS, Welk GJ. The wild wild west: a framework to integrate mhealth software applications and wearables to support physical activity assessment, counseling and interventions for cardiovascular disease risk reduction. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;58(6):584–94. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2016.02.007.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1.
    1. Diaz KM, Krupka DJ, Chang MJ, Peacock J, Ma Y, Goldsmith J, Schwartz JE, Davidson KW. Fitbit®: An accurate and reliable device for wireless physical activity tracking. Int J Cardiol. 2015 Apr 15;185:138–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.038.
    1. Adam NJ, Spierer DK, Gu J, Bronner S. Comparison of steps and energy expenditure assessment in adults of Fitbit Tracker and Ultra to the Actical and indirect calorimetry. J Med Eng Technol. 2013 Oct;37(7):456–62. doi: 10.3109/03091902.2013.831135.
    1. Gusmer R, Bosch T, Watkins A, Ostrem J, Dengel D. Comparison of FitBit® Ultra to ActiGraph™ GT1M for assessment of physical activity in young adults during treadmill walking. TOSMJ. 2014 Apr 04;8(1):11–15. doi: 10.2174/1874387001408010011.
    1. Stahl ST, Insana SP. Caloric expenditure assessment among older adults: criterion validity of a novel accelerometry device. J Health Psychol. 2014 Nov;19(11):1382–7. doi: 10.1177/1359105313490771.
    1. Wahl Y, Düking P, Droszez A, Wahl P, Mester J. Criterion-validity of commercially available physical activity tracker to estimate step count, covered distance and energy expenditure during sports conditions. Front Physiol. 2017;8:725. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00725. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00725.
    1. Feehan LM, Geldman J, Sayre EC, Park C, Ezzat AM, Yoo JY, Hamilton CB, Li LC. Accuracy of Fitbit devices: systematic review and narrative syntheses of quantitative data. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Aug 09;6(8):e10527. doi: 10.2196/10527.
    1. Imboden MT, Nelson MB, Kaminsky LA, Montoye AH. Comparison of four Fitbit and Jawbone activity monitors with a research-grade ActiGraph accelerometer for estimating physical activity and energy expenditure. Br J Sports Med. 2017 May 08; doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096990.
    1. Dannecker KL, Sazonova NA, Melanson EL, Sazonov ES, Browning RC. A comparison of energy expenditure estimation of several physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Nov;45(11):2105–12. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318299d2eb.
    1. Case MA, Burwick HA, Volpp KG, Patel MS. Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. JAMA. 2015 Feb 10;313(6):625–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17841.
    1. Kooiman TJM, Dontje ML, Sprenger SR, Krijnen WP, van DSCP, de GM. Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2015;7:24. doi: 10.1186/s13102-015-0018-5.
    1. Boudreaux BD, Hebert EP, Hollander DB, Williams BM, Cormier CL, Naquin MR, Gillan WW, Gusew EE, Kraemer RR. Validity of wearable activity monitors during cycling and resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Mar;50(3):624–633. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001471.
    1. Zou GY. Sample size formulas for estimating intraclass correlation coefficients with precision and assurance. Stat Med. 2012 Dec 20;31(29):3972–81. doi: 10.1002/sim.5466.
    1. Bästa frågan till patienter om fysisk aktivitet. GIH. [2020-08-20].
    1. Forskningsstudie om validering av indikatorfrågor till patienter om fysisk aktivitet. Socialstyrelsen. 2013. [2020-08-20]. .
    1. Bergström G, Jensen IB, Bodin L, Linton SJ, Nygren AL, Carlsson SG. Reliability and factor structure of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory--Swedish language version (MPI-S) Pain. 1998 Mar;75(1):101–10. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00210-8.
    1. How does my Fitbit device calculate calories burned? Fitbit. [2020-08-30]. .
    1. How does my Fitbit device calculate active minutes? Fitbit. [2020-08-30]. .
    1. Haugen HA, Chan L, Li F. Indirect calorimetry: a practical guide for clinicians. Nutr Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;22(4):377–88. doi: 10.1177/0115426507022004377.
    1. Rietjens GJ, Kuipers H, Kester AD, Keizer HA. Validation of a computerized metabolic measurement system (Oxycon-Pro) during low and high intensity exercise. Int J Sports Med. 2001 May;22(4):291–4. doi: 10.1055/s-2001-14342.
    1. Tucker JM, Welk GJ, Beyler NK. Physical activity in U.S.: adults compliance with the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Apr;40(4):454–61. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.016.
    1. Sasaki JE, John D, Freedson PS. Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors. J Sci Med Sport. 2011 Sep;14(5):411–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2011.04.003.
    1. Bassett DR, Rowlands A, Trost SG. Calibration and validation of wearable monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Jan;44(1 Suppl 1):S32–8. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399cf7.
    1. Keadle SK, Lyden KA, Strath SJ, Staudenmayer JW, Freedson PS. A framework to evaluate devices that assess physical behavior. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. 2019;47(4):206–214. doi: 10.1249/jes.0000000000000206.
    1. Dowd KP, Harrington DM, Donnelly AE. Criterion and concurrent validity of the activPAL™ professional physical activity monitor in adolescent females. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047633.
    1. Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1970;2(2):92–8.
    1. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Dec;8(12):1153–7.
    1. Web API reference. Fitbit Platform. [2021-01-04].
    1. Redenius N, Kim Y, Byun W. Concurrent validity of the Fitbit for assessing sedentary behavior and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Feb 7;19(1) doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0668-1.
    1. Lyden K, Kozey SL, Staudenmeyer JW, Freedson PS. A comprehensive evaluation of commonly used accelerometer energy expenditure and MET prediction equations. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Feb;111(2):187–201. doi: 10.1007/s00421-010-1639-8.
    1. Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998 May;30(5):777–81.
    1. Barnhart HX, Haber MJ, Lin LI. An overview on assessing agreement with continuous measurements. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):529–69. doi: 10.1080/10543400701376480.
    1. Liljequist D, Elfving B, Skavberg Roaldsen K. Intraclass correlation - a discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219854. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219854.
    1. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment. 1994;6(4):284–290. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–10.
    1. Akoglu H. User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018 Sep;18(3):91–93. doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001.
    1. Chan YH. Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singapore Med J. 2003 Dec;44(12):614–9.
    1. Welk GJ, Bai Y, Lee J, Godino J, Saint-Maurice PF, Carr L. Standardizing analytic methods and reporting in activity monitor validation studies. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2019;51(8):1767–1780. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000001966.
    1. Fox-Wasylyshyn SM, El-Masri MM. Handling missing data in self-report measures. Res Nurs Health. 2005 Dec;28(6):488–95. doi: 10.1002/nur.20100.
    1. Tedesco S, Sica M, Ancillao A, Timmons S, Barton J, O’Flynn B. Accuracy of consumer-level and research-grade activity trackers in ambulatory settings in older adults. PLoS ONE. 2019 May 21;14(5):e0216891. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216891.
    1. Herkert C, Kraal JJ, van Loon EMA, van Hooff M, Kemps HMC. Usefulness of modern activity trackers for monitoring exercise behavior in chronic cardiac patients: validation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Dec 19;7(12):e15045. doi: 10.2196/15045.
    1. Vetrovsky T, Siranec M, Marencakova J, Tufano JJ, Capek V, Bunc V, Belohlavek J. Validity of six consumer-level activity monitors for measuring steps in patients with chronic heart failure. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0222569. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222569.
    1. Gomersall SR, Ng N, Burton NW, Pavey TG, Gilson ND, Brown WJ. Estimating physical activity and sedentary behavior in a free-living context: a pragmatic comparison of consumer-based activity trackers and ActiGraph accelerometry. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 07;18(9):e239. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5531.
    1. Meulders A. From fear of movement-related pain and avoidance to chronic pain disability: a state-of-the-art review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2019 Apr;26:130–136. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.12.007.
    1. Burnett AF, Cornelius MW, Dankaerts W, O'sullivan PB. Spinal kinematics and trunk muscle activity in cyclists: a comparison between healthy controls and non-specific chronic low back pain subjects-a pilot investigation. Man Ther. 2004 Nov;9(4):211–9. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2004.06.002.
    1. Vlaeyen JW, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000;85(3):317–332. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00242-0.
    1. Nelson BW, Allen NB. Accuracy of consumer wearable heart rate measurement during an ecologically valid 24-hour period: intraindividual validation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Mar 11;7(3):e10828. doi: 10.2196/10828.
    1. Sushames A, Edwards A, Thompson F, McDermott R, Gebel K. Validity and reliability of Fitbit Flex for step count, moderate to vigorous physical activity and activity energy expenditure. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0161224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161224.
    1. Tseli E, Vixner L, LoMartire R, Grooten WJA, Gerdle B, Äng BO. Prognostic factors for improved physical and emotional functioning one year after interdisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic pain: Results from a national quality registry in Sweden. J Rehabil Med. 2020 Feb 27;52(2):jrm00019. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2648.
    1. Gerdle B, Björk J, Cöster L, Henriksson K, Henriksson C, Bengtsson A. Prevalence of widespread pain and associations with work status: a population study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Jul 15;9:102. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-9-102.
    1. Macfarlane G J, Morris S, Hunt I M, Benjamin S, McBeth J, Papageorgiou A C, Silman A J. Chronic widespread pain in the community: the influence of psychological symptoms and mental disorder on healthcare seeking behavior. J Rheumatol. 1999 Feb;26(2):413–9.
    1. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006 May;10(4):287–333. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.009.
    1. Gerdle B, Boersma K, Åsenlöf P, Stålnacke B, Larsson B, Ringqvist Å. Influences of sex, education, and country of birth on clinical presentations and overall outcomes of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation in chronic pain patients: a cohort study from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP) J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 25;9(8) doi: 10.3390/jcm9082374.
    1. Johansson E, Lindberg P. Low back pain patients in primary care: Subgroups based on the multidimensional pain inventory. Int J Behav Med. 2000 Dec;7(4):340–352. doi: 10.1207/S15327558IJBM0704_05.
    1. Nilsen Tom Ivar Lund, Holtermann Andreas, Mork Paul J. Physical exercise, body mass index, and risk of chronic pain in the low back and neck/shoulders: longitudinal data from the Nord-Trondelag Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Aug 01;174(3):267–73. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr087.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit