Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers as measuring tool and coaching device in breast and colorectal cancer survivors

Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Consumer-based activity trackers are used to measure and promote PA. We studied the accuracy of a wrist- and waist-worn activity tracker in cancer survivors and compared these results to a healthy age-matched control group.

Methods

Twenty-two cancer survivors and 35 healthy subjects wore an activity tracker at the waist and at the wrist combined with a reference activity monitor at the waist (Dynaport Movemonitor). The devices were worn for 14 consecutive days. The mean daily step count from both activity trackers was compared with the reference activity monitor to investigate accuracy and agreement (paired t-test, intraclass correlation, Bland–Altman plots). To evaluate the accuracy as a coaching tool, day-by-day differences within patients were calculated. The Kendall correlation coefficient was used to test the consistency of ranking daily steps between the activity trackers and the reference activity monitor.

Results

The wrist-worn wearable significantly overestimated the daily step count in the cancer group (mean ± SDΔ: + 1305 (2685) steps per day; p = 0.033) and in the healthy control group (mean ± SDΔ: + 1598 (2927) steps per day; p = 0.003). The waist-worn wearable underestimated the step count in both groups, although this was not statistically significant. As a coaching device, moderate (r = 0.642–0.670) and strong (r = 0.733–0.738) accuracy was found for the wrist- and waist-worn tracker, respectively, for detecting day-by-day variability in both populations.

Conclusion

Our results show that wrist-worn activity trackers significantly overestimate daily step count in both cancer survivors and healthy control subjects. Based on the accuracy, in particular, the waist-worn activity tracker could possibly be used as a coaching tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, ADG.

References

  1. Dyba T, Randi G, Bray F et al (2021) The European cancer burden in 2020: incidence and mortality estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 157:308–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Patel AV, Friedenreich CM, Moore SC et al (2019) American College of Sports Medicine roundtable report on physical activity, sedentary behavior, and cancer prevention and control. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51(11):2391–2402

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell KL, Winters-Stone KM, Wiskemann J et al (2019) Exercise guidelines for cancer survivors: consensus statement from international multidisciplinary roundtable. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51(11):2375–2390

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Asnong A, D’Hoore A, Wolthuis A et al (2021) Physical activity levels after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: one-year follow-up. BMC Public Health 21(1):2270

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. De Groef A, Geraerts I, Demeyer H et al (2018) Physical activity levels after treatment for breast cancer: two-year follow-up. Breast 40:23–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Henriksen A, Haugen Mikalsen M, Woldaregay AZ et al (2018) Using fitness trackers and smartwatches to measure physical activity in research: analysis of consumer wrist-worn wearables. J Med Internet Res 20(3):e110

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lyons EJ, Lewis ZH, Mayrsohn BG, Rowland JL (2014) Behavior change techniques implemented in electronic lifestyle activity monitors: a systematic content analysis. J Med Internet Res 16(8):e192

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Schaffer K, Panneerselvam N, Loh KP et al (2019) Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of exercise interventions using digital activity trackers in patients with cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw:JNCCN 17(1):57–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M et al (2013) The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med:Publ Soc Behav Med 46(1):81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Coughlin SS, Caplan LS, Stone R (2020) Use of consumer wearable devices to promote physical activity among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors: a review of health intervention studies. J Cancer Survivorship : Res Pract 14(3):386–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alinia P, Cain C, Fallahzadeh R, Shahrokni A, Cook D, Ghasemzadeh H (2017) How accurate is your activity tracker? A comparative study of step counts in low-intensity physical activities. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 5(8):e106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Tully MA, McBride C, Heron L, Hunter RF (2014) The validation of Fibit Zip™ physical activity monitor as a measure of free-living physical activity. BMC Res Notes 7:952

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD (2015) Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12:159

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Ginis P, Goris M, De Groef A, Blondeel A, Gilat M, Demeyer H et al (2023) Validation of commercial activity trackers in everyday life of people with Parkinson's disease. Sensors 23(8):4156. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23084156

  15. Blondeel A, Demeyer H, Janssens W, Troosters T (2020) Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers as measuring tool and coaching device in patients with COPD and healthy controls. PLoS One 15(8):e0236676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Blondeel AD, Asnong N, Geraerts A, De Groef I, Heroes A, Van Calster A, Troosters C, Demeyer T, Ginis H, De Vrieze TP (n.d.) Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers to measure and coach patients with lower limb lymphoedema. Under consideration for publication

  17. Van Remoortel H, Raste Y, Louvaris Z et al (2012) Validity of six activity monitors in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a comparison with indirect calorimetry. PLoS One 7(6):e39198

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rabinovich RA, Louvaris Z, Raste Y et al (2013) Validity of physical activity monitors during daily life in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 42(5):1205–1215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. de Groot S, Nieuwenhuizen MG (2013) Validity and reliability of measuring activities, movement intensity and energy expenditure with the DynaPort MoveMonitor. Med Eng Phys 35(10):1499–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fokkenrood HJ, Verhofstad N, van den Houten MM et al (2014) Physical activity monitoring in patients with peripheral arterial disease: validation of an activity monitor. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 48(2):194–200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Langer D, Gosselink R, Sena R, Burtin C, Decramer M, Troosters T (2009) Validation of two activity monitors in patients with COPD. Thorax 64(7):641–642

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mukaka MM (2012) Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 24(3):69–71

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tudor-Locke C, Sisson SB, Lee SM, Craig CL, Plotnikoff RC, Bauman A (2006) Evaluation of quality of commercial pedometers. Can J Public Health 97(Suppl 1):S10-15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. De Groef A, Demeyer H, de Kinkelder C et al (2022) Physical activity levels of breast cancer patients before diagnosis compared to a reference population: a cross-sectional comparative study. Clin Breast Cancer 22(5):e708–e717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Aoyagi Y et al (2011) How many steps/day are enough? For older adults and special populations. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8(1):80

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Brown WJ et al (2011) How many steps/day are enough? For adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8:79

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Salerno EA, Saint-Maurice PF, Willis EA, Moore SC, DiPietro L, Matthews CE (2021) Ambulatory function and mortality among cancer survivors in the NIH-AARP diet and health study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 30(4):690–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Alley S, Schoeppe S, Guertler D, Jennings C, Duncan MJ, Vandelanotte C (2016) Interest and preferences for using advanced physical activity tracking devices: results of a national cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 6(7):e011243

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ng A, Gupta E, Bansal S et al (2021) Cancer patients’ perception of usefulness of wearable exercise trackers. PM R 13(8):845–851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hardcastle SJ, Galliott M, Lynch BM et al (2018) Acceptability and utility of, and preference for wearable activity trackers amongst non-metropolitan cancer survivors. PLoS One 13(12):e0210039

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study was funded by KU Leuven.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ADG, TT, HD, IG, ND, AN conceived and desgined the study and analyses;

ADG, AA, TDV collected the data;

ADG, AB, HD performed the analyses;

ADG, AB, HD wrote the paper.

All co-authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to An De Groef.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the local ethics committee of UZ Leuven (reference number: S-60227). The study is reported according to the STROBE guidelines. All participants signed informed consent.

Consent for publication

N/a.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

An De Groef and Anne Asnong shared first authors.

Heleen Demeyer and Inge Geraerts shared last authors.

Support statement: AB is predoctoral research fellow, and ADG, TDV, and HDM are postdoctoral research fellows of the FWO-Flanders.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 107 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Groef, A., Asnong, A., Blondeel, A. et al. Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers as measuring tool and coaching device in breast and colorectal cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 31, 596 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08061-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08061-2

Keywords

Navigation