What Are You Waiting for? – Perceived Barriers to the Adoption of Fitness-Applications and Wearables

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 795)


To get a better insight into perceived barriers and motives to use fitness apps and wearables, a mixed-method study-design, consisting of both a qualitative and a quantitative part, has been used. In an online questionnaire answered by N = 166 participants, the perceived usefulness of fitness-apps as well as perceived benefits and barriers were evaluated. Additional factors such as experience with such apps and wearables, technical self-efficacy, and privacy concerns were also taken into account. Results show that fitness apps and wearables are met with approval. They are deemed useful and provide necessary information to start or keep a healthy lifestyle. Demographic variables also had an impact on the intention to use such devices. One of the biggest barriers seems to be the concern for one’s privacy, the collected data seen as rather sensitive. Also, the additional use of a wearable changes the perception and intention to use a fitness app.


Human factors Wearables Life-logging Motives Barriers Activity tracker 



We thank all participants of the focus group and the survey for their willingness to share their thoughts and feelings about persuasive technologies, fitness trackers, and their privacy concerns. We also thank Niklas Kunstleben for his research support. Parts of this work have been funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under project “myneData” (KIS1DSD045).


  1. 1.
    Lupton, D.: Self-tracking cultures: towards a sociology of personal informatics (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization: Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. WHO Press, Geneva (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hadgraft, N.T., Lynch, B.M., Clark, B.K., Healy, G.N., Owen, N., Dunstan, D.W.: Excessive sitting at work and at home: correlates of occupational sitting and TV viewing time in working adults. BMC Public Health 15, 899 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Rezende, L.F.M., Lopes, M.R., Rey-López, J.P., Matsudo, V.K.R., Do Carmo Luiz, O.: Sedentary behavior and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE 9, e105620 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ernsting, C., Dombrowski, S.U., Oedekoven, M., O’Sullivan, J.L., Kanzler, M., Kuhlmey, A., Gellert, P.: Using smartphones and health apps to change and manage health behaviors: a population-based survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 19, e101 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venkatesh, V., Walton, S.M., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36, 157–178 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaewkannate, K., Kim, S.: A comparison of wearable fitness devices. BMC Public Health 16, 433 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sasaki, J.E., Hickey, A., Mavilia, M., Tedesco, J., John, D., Keadle, S.K., Freedson, P.S.: Validation of the Fitbit wireless activity Tracker(R) for prediction of energy expenditure. J. Phys. Act. Health 12, 149–154 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    An, H.-S., Jones, G.C., Kang, S.-K., Welk, G.J., Lee, J.-M.: How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps? Eur. J. Sport Sci. 17, 360–368 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Storm, F.A., Heller, B.W., Mazzà, C.: Step detection and activity recognition accuracy of seven physical activity monitors. PLoS ONE 10, e0118723 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Connell, S., Ólaighin, G., Kelly, L., Murphy, E., Beirne, S., Burke, N., Kilgannon, O., Quinlan, L.R.: These shoes are made for walking: sensitivity performance evaluation of commercial activity monitors under the expected conditions and circumstances required to achieve the international daily step goal of 10,000 steps. PLoS ONE 11, e0154956 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gillinov, S., Etiwy, M., Wang, R., Blackburn, G., Phelan, D., Gillinov, A.M., Houghtaling, P., Javadikasgari, H., Desai, M.Y.: Variable accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors during aerobic exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 49, 1697–1703 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Case, M.A., Burwick, H.A., Volpp, K.G., Patel, M.S.: Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. JAMA 313, 625–626 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer, J., Schnauber, J., Heuten, W., Wienbergen, H., Hambrecht, R., Appelrath, H.-J., Boll, S.: Exploring longitudinal use of activity trackers. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICHI - International Conference Healthcare Informatics, pp. 198–206 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ledger, D., McCaffrey, D.: Inside wearables: how the science of human behavior change offers the secret to long-term engagement. Endeavor Partn. 200, 1–17 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clawson, J., Pater, J.A., Miller, A.D., Mynatt, E.D., Mamykina, L.: No longer wearing: investigating the abandonment of personal health-tracking technologies on craigslist. In: UbiComp 2015, pp. 647–658 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lidynia, C., Brauner, P., Ziefle, M.: A step in the right direction – understanding privacy concerns and perceived sensitivity of fitness trackers. In: Ahram, T., Falcão, C. (eds.) Advances in Human Factors in Wearable Technologies and Game Design. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 608, pp. 42–53. Springer, Cham (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bélanger, F., Crossler, R.E.: Privacy in the digital age: a review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Q. 35, 1017–1041 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R., Horne, D.A.: The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J. Consum. Aff. 41, 100–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hallam, C., Zanella, G.: Online self-disclosure: the privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards. Comput. Hum. Behav. 68, 217–227 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nurse, J.R.C., Williams, M., Nurse, J.R.C., Creese, S.: The perfect storm: the privacy paradox and the Internet-of-Things. In: International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inf. Syst. Res. 17, 61–80 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., Ellison, N.B., Quiring, O., Yao, M.Z., Ziegele, M.: A cross-cultural perspective on the privacy calculus. Soc. Med. + Soc. 3, 1–13 (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beier, G.: Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik [Locus of control when interacting with technology]. Rep. Psychol. 24, 684–693 (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schomakers, E.-M., Lidynia, C., Vervier, L., Ziefle, M.: Of guardians, cynics, and pragmatists – a typology of privacy concerns and behavior. In: 3rd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications (2018)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lidynia, C., Philipsen, R., Ziefle, M.: Droning on about drones - acceptance of and perceived barriers to drones in civil usage contexts. In: Savage-Knepshield, P., Chen, J. (eds.) Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, pp. 317–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Warburton, D.E.R., Nicol, C.W., Bredin, S.S.D.: Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ 174, 801–809 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, I.-M., Shiroma, E.J., Lobelo, F., Puska, P., Blair, S.N., Katzmarzyk, P.T.: Impact of physical inactivity on the world’s major non-communicable diseases. Lancet 380, 219–229 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li, H., Wu, J., Gao, Y., Shi, Y.: Examining individuals’ adoption of healthcare wearable devices: an empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. Int. J. Med. Inform. 88, 8–17 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction Center (HCIC)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations