JMU JMIR Mhealth Uhealth JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2291-5222 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v9i5e23411 34047705 10.2196/23411 Review Review Use of Fitbit Devices in Physical Activity Intervention Studies Across the Life Course: Narrative Review Buis Lorraine Glanz Karen Ridgers Nicola Alvarez Pitti Julio St Fleur Ruth Gaelle BA 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0989-981X St George Sara Mijares PhD 1
Department of Public Health Sciences University of Miami Miller School of Medicine 1120 NW 14th St Miami, FL, 33136 United States 1 305 2432000 s.stgeorge@med.miami.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7263-4609 Leite Rafael BA 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5597-2347 Kobayashi Marissa MHS 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7475-0785 Agosto Yaray MPH 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6422-4674 Jake-Schoffman Danielle E PhD 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6381-7323 Department of Public Health Sciences University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami, FL United States Department of Psychology University of Miami Coral Gables, FL United States Department of Health, Education, and Behavior University of Florida Gainesville, FL United States Corresponding Author: Sara Mijares St George s.stgeorge@med.miami.edu 5 2021 28 5 2021 9 5 e23411 11 8 2020 22 10 2020 31 1 2021 6 4 2021 ©Ruth Gaelle St Fleur, Sara Mijares St George, Rafael Leite, Marissa Kobayashi, Yaray Agosto, Danielle E Jake-Schoffman. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 28.05.2021. 2021

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

Commercial off-the-shelf activity trackers (eg, Fitbit) allow users to self-monitor their daily physical activity (PA), including the number of steps, type of PA, amount of sleep, and other features. Fitbits have been used as both measurement and intervention tools. However, it is not clear how they are being incorporated into PA intervention studies, and their use in specific age groups across the life course is not well understood.

Objective

This narrative review aims to characterize how PA intervention studies across the life course use Fitbit devices by synthesizing and summarizing information on device selection, intended use (intervention vs measurement tool), participant wear instructions, rates of adherence to device wear, strategies used to boost adherence, and the complementary use of other PA measures. This review provides intervention scientists with a synthesis of information that may inform future trials involving Fitbit devices.

Methods

We conducted a search of the Fitabase Fitbit Research Library, a database of studies published between 2012 and 2018. Of the 682 studies available on the Fitabase research library, 60 interventions met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. A supplemental search in PubMed resulted in the inclusion of 15 additional articles published between 2019 and 2020. A total of 75 articles were reviewed, which represented interventions conducted in childhood; adolescence; and early, middle, and older adulthood.

Results

There was considerable heterogeneity in the use of Fitbit within and between developmental stages. Interventions for adults typically required longer wear periods, whereas studies on children and adolescents tended to have more limited device wear periods. Most studies used developmentally appropriate behavior change techniques and device wear instructions. Regardless of the developmental stage and intended Fitbit use (ie, measurement vs intervention tool), the most common strategies used to enhance wear time included sending participants reminders through texts or emails and asking participants to log their steps or synchronize their Fitbit data daily. The rates of adherence to the wear time criteria were reported using varying metrics. Most studies supplemented the use of Fitbit with additional objective or self-reported measures for PA.

Conclusions

Overall, the heterogeneity in Fitbit use across PA intervention studies reflects its relative novelty in the field of research. As the use of monitoring devices continues to expand in PA research, the lack of uniformity in study protocols and metrics of reported measures represents a major issue for comparability purposes. There is a need for increased transparency in the prospective registration of PA intervention studies. Researchers need to provide a clear rationale for the use of several PA measures and specify the source of their main PA outcome and how additional measures will be used in the context of Fitbit-based interventions.

 physical activity Fitbit eHealth life course mobile phone Introduction Background

Insufficient physical activity (PA) in all stages of life, from early childhood to older adulthood, is a well-documented public health issue [1]. Between 2001 and 2016, although the levels of insufficient PA decreased marginally globally, high-income Western countries, such as the United States, reported a 5% increase in the prevalence of physical inactivity [2]. Insufficient PA is associated with increased risk for a variety of chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes [3,4]. Although the current PA guidelines for Americans recommend at least 60 minutes per day of moderate- to vigorous-intensity PA for children and adolescents and 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity PA for adults, more than 80% of youth and adults do not meet these guidelines [5].

Advances in 21st century technology have introduced the use of commercial off-the-shelf activity trackers (eg, Fitbit and Apple Watch) that allow users to self-monitor their daily PA. As one of the top 5 wearable companies based on shipment volume, Fitbit has produced some of the most popular fitness trackers that are currently available on the market [6]. These devices allow users to track their daily activities, including the number of steps, type of PA, and amount of sleep, among other features [7]. Fitbit released its first device in 2009 and its first wrist-worn tracker in 2012 [8]. The brand quickly gained popularity and saw a substantial increase in the use of activity trackers in a relatively short time. In 2014, Fitbit reported only 6.7 million active users compared with 29.6 million in 2019 [9]. In November 2019, Google announced its purchase of Fitbit for US $2.1 billion and publicly committed to accelerating innovation of these devices [7].

In the last decade, researchers have begun to take advantage of Fitbit’s public appeal, prominence, and relatively low cost compared with that of other commercial off-the-shelf activity trackers such as the Apple Watch, by incorporating these devices into their studies. This has been facilitated by Fitbit’s open application programming interface (API), which allows programmers to collect and store data across multiple devices [7]. Fitabase is an example of a company that capitalizes on Fitbit’s open API and works with researchers to collect, manage, and analyze data from participants’ Fitbit devices [10]. In addition to being a data management platform, Fitabase provides the general public with access to an extensive library containing hundreds of published studies, protocols, and methods papers that report their use of Fitbit devices [11]. As of January 7, 2021, 682 articles published between 2012 and 2018 were available on the Fitabase research library [11].

 Objectives

Early studies involving Fitbit focused on establishing its accuracy as an objective PA measurement tool, especially in comparison with existing gold standard measurement devices [12,13]. The first study using a Fitbit device to assess PA was published in 2012 and assessed its validity in measuring steps taken during self-paced and prescribed PA [14]. Overall, there have been mixed findings about the accuracy of Fitbit measurements, with some studies indicating step count accuracy 50% of the time compared with research-grade accelerometers [15] and others reporting high validity in step count measurements [16,17]. In addition to their ability to serve as a PA measurement tool, Fitbit devices are increasingly being used to support self-monitoring and goal setting as a way of promoting PA in intervention studies across the life course [18-21]. However, it is not clear how these commercially available devices are being incorporated into PA intervention studies. This gap severely hinders the creation of standardized procedures that operationalize Fitbit use in PA intervention studies (eg, wear time protocols, strategies to boost wear time, and analysis implications) [22]. An overview of the ways in which Fitbit devices can be used to measure or help achieve the desired intervention effects can further contribute to the evidence base. Notably, Fitbit devices have been used in PA interventions targeting children through older adults. However, differences in use protocols across age groups (eg, models and strategies to boost wear time) are not known. In this context, this narrative review aims to characterize how PA intervention studies across the life course use Fitbit in terms of device selection, intended use (intervention vs measurement tool), wear instructions, rates of adherence to device wear, strategies used to boost adherence, and potential use of additional PA measures. This review provides intervention scientists with a synthesis of information that may inform future trials involving Fitbit devices.

 Methods Search Strategy and Eligibility Criteria

Given that it serves as a repository of Fitbit-related studies, we first conducted a search of the Fitabase Fitbit Research Library [11]. As of January 7, 2021, the Fitabase research library included studies published between 2012 and 2018 and retrieved from PubMed, Google Scholar, the Association for Computing Machinery, JMIR, Science Direct, and IEEE. Approximately twice a week during this period, the Fitabase team conducted searches of those sources using the keyword Fitbit. The studies identified in the search were then put through a screening process wherein they were deemed eligible for inclusion in the library only if a Fitbit device was used as a key element of the study (ie, for measurement or intervention purposes) [11]. In the Fitabase library, we applied preexisting filters to limit eligible studies to those that were (1) intervention studies, (2) focused on and reported PA as a main study outcome, and (3) conducted in one of five developmental stages of interest (ie, childhood [9-12 years old], adolescence [13-17 years old], early adulthood [18-40 years old], middle adulthood [41-64 years old], or older adulthood [≥65 years old]). We excluded nonintervention studies, those that did not report a specific target population, and those that did not have full-text articles available. We also excluded intervention studies that used Fitbit devices exclusively to monitor sleep. To capture studies published between 2019 and 2020, we conducted a search of PubMed using the following string search: “(physical activity[Title/Abstract]) AND (Fitbit[Title/Abstract]) AND (intervention*[Title/Abstract]).” In addition to applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria specified earlier, we excluded protocol and review papers and qualitative studies.

 Data Collection

The first 2 authors created a standardized form for data extraction by using Microsoft Excel. The items on this form, which were all open-ended, captured (1) general study characteristics (ie, sample size, study design, and intervention description) and (2) Fitbit use (ie, model, wear time and adherence, strategies to boost wear time, and other measures of PA). After finalizing the form, the first author read all the eligible studies and extracted the relevant data. To enhance the reliability of the extracted information, 3 additional coders (RL, MK, and YA) subsequently read the articles and reviewed the extracted data. As part of our protocol, disagreements between authors were resolved through discussion, with the final decision being made by the senior author.

 Results Overview

Of the 682 studies available on the Fitabase Fitbit Research Library, 60 interventions met the eligibility criteria for this review. An additional 15 eligible studies resulting from the PubMed search were included. A total of 75 studies were reviewed (n=6 in childhood, n=11 in adolescence, n=20 in early adulthood, n=28 in middle adulthood, and n=10 in older adulthood). Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of the study. Tables 1 and 2 show the study characteristics and Fitbit use by developmental stage for included studies, organized by intended Fitbit use (ie, intervention vs measurement).

Study selection flow diagram.

General study characteristics.

Developmental stage Study design and intervention description Participant characteristics at baseline
Value, N Age (years), mean (SD) or range Female, % Race or ethnicity Weight status (eg, BMI, weight)
Childhood
Intervention only
Evans et al, 2017 [23]

Quasi-experimental design with 3 conditions: (1) Fitbit+intervention, (2) Fitbit only, and (3) control

6-week classroom-based intervention

One session per week lasting 40 min and led by teachers and study staff

Individual and group-level achievements

BCTsa: goal setting, self-monitoring, and rewards

 		42 12.3 (0.3) 47b NRc 42% overweight or obese
Mackintosh et al, 2016 [24]

Single-group pre-post design

4-week intervention with teams designing and completing week-long missions

Teachers equipped with a guide and DVD outlining various missions

BCTs: goal setting, self-monitoring, and rewards

 		30 10.1 (0.3) 40 NR BMI: mean 19.9 (SD 4) kg/m2
Measurement only
Walther et al, 2018 [25]

Single-group pre-post design

12-week afterschool program with two 60-min sessions per week (24 total)

12 sessions focused on nutrition and increasing PAd and 12 sessions taught safe food preparation while preparing simple, healthful recipes

BCTs: shaping knowledge and self-monitoring

 		24 9.58 (NR) 83 30% White; 29% Black; 25% Hispanic; 16% Native American NR
Intervention and measurement
Buchele Harris and Chen, 2018 [18]

Quasi-experimental design with 2 conditions: (1) PA engaging the brain+Fitbit challenge (PAEB-C) or (2) Fitbit only

4-week school-based intervention

Participants in PAEB-C condition followed a 6-min video once a day

BCTs: behavioral rehearsal and self-monitoring

 		116 10-11 49 60% reported race other than White, with 30% Blackb NR
Harris et al, 2018b [26]

Quasi-experimental design with 2 conditions: (1) coordinated-bilateral PA intervention or (2) Fitbit only

4-week school-based intervention

Repetitive coordinated-bilateral motor movements performed while following a 6-min video instruction once a day

BCTs: behavioral rehearsal and self-monitoring

 		116 NR 50 60% reported race other than White, with 30% Blackb NR
Hayes and Van Camp, 2015 [27]

Single-group pre-post design

22 sessions of 20 min, 1 to 4 days per week on an elementary school playground during regularly scheduled, unstructured recess

BCTs: self-monitoring

 		6 NR 100 NR 66% normal weight
Adolescence
Intervention only
Chen et al, 2017 [28]

RCTe with 2 conditions

Phone-based 3-month intervention for adolescents who are overweight and obese

8 modules focused on lifestyle modification, weight management, nutrition, and stress

BCTs: shaping knowledge and self-monitoring

 		40 14.9 (1.7) 42 90% Chinese American BMI: mean 28.3 (SD 4.7) kg/m2
Gandrud et al, 2018 [29]

Parallel-group RCT with 2 conditions

6-month intervention using intensive remote therapy for pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes

Content focused on recommendations for diabetes management, glucose control, and PA

BCT: shaping knowledge and self-monitoring

 		117 12.7 (2.5) 54 NR BMI z-score: mean 0.5 (SD 0.9)
Mendoza et al, 2017 [30]

Pilot RCT with 2 conditions

10-week intervention for adolescent and young adult survivors of cancer using a wearable device, mobile health app, and Facebook support group for reaching PA goals

BCTs: shaping knowledge, self-monitoring, and social support

 		60 16.6 (1.5) 59 66% non-Hispanic White; 14% Hispanic; 7% non-Hispanic Black; 14% Other NR
Measurement only
Haegele and Porretta, 2016 [31]

Single-group pre-post design

Social cognitive theory–based PA intervention for adolescents with visual impairments

9 lessons delivered during PA classes that included curricular concepts, in-class activities, and homework

BCTs: shaping knowledge, behavioral rehearsal, and self-monitoring

 		6 NR NR NR NR
Meng et al, 2018 [32]

Quasi-experimental design

2-year intervention for soccer players delivered by coaches

Content focused on addressing exercise, body image, and nutrition

BCTs: shaping knowledge and self-monitoring

 		388 15.3 (1.1) 58 62% non-Latino; 38% Latino BMI %: mean 62.8 (SD 25.0)
Walther et al, 2018 [25]

Pre-post study design

12-week intervention with fourth and fifth graders that focused on proper nutrition and safe food preparation techniques and promoted PA via interactive games

BCTs: self-monitoring, shaping knowledge, and social support

 		30 9.58 (NR) 83 30% White; 29% Black or African American; 25% Hispanic; 16% Native American NR
Intervention and measurement
Gaudet et al, 2017 [19]

Quasi-experimental crossover design

7-week classroom-based intervention to increase students’ PA

BCTs: self-monitoring, self-regulation, and goal setting

 		46 13.0 (0.3) 52% NR NR
Pope et al, 2018 [33]

Multiphase mixed methods consisting of an RCT

12-week intervention for high school students where participants assigned to the game group were rewarded based on the number of daily steps taken

BCTs: goal setting, self-monitoring, and rewards

 		105 17.0 (NR) 71 67% White; 16% Black; 12% Hispanic or Latino; 12% Asian; 5% Other NR
Remmert et al, 2019 [34]

Quasi-experimental pilot study

12-week school-based ABTf intervention to increase PA in adolescents with low activity

Weekly sessions conducted by project coordinator consisted of acceptance-based behavioral counseling combined with preferred-intensity exercise for 30 min

BCTs: behavioral counseling, behavioral practice, and self-monitoring

 		20 12.0 (0.0) 60 55% Latino; 25% non-Latino White; 20% Other BMI: mean 21.7 (SD 3.6) kg/m2
Short et al, 2018 [35]

RCT with 2 conditions

48-week exercise intervention subdivided into 3 consecutive 16-week phases

Tested how different incentive schemes influence exercise frequency and duration among youth

Self-monitoring and rewards

 		77 14.0 (2.2) NR 100% American Indian BMI%: mean 98 (SD 3)
Van Woudenberg et al, 2018 [36]

RCT with 2 conditions

7-day classroom-based intervention that used a social network model to select and train influential adolescents (using smartphones)

BCTs: social facilitation, behavior modeling, impression management, and self-persuasion

 		190 12.2 (0.5) 54 NR NR
Early adulthood (18-40 years)
Intervention only
Bang et al, 2017 [37]

Quasi-experimental design

6-week campus-based program with one session per week during lunch

Participants walked together through the campus forest for approximately 40 min and received one lecture on stress management

Encouraged to walk at least once per week at their leisure

BCTs: self-monitoring, behavioral practice, and social support

 		99 24.8 (4.7)b 49b NR BMI: mean 21.9 (SD 2.9) kg/m2b
Baruth et al, 2019 [38]

Quasi-experimental pilot study with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

Weekly PA intervention for pregnant women until 35-week gestation

BCTs: goal setting, behavior counseling, self-monitoring, and social support

 		45 28.4 (4.5)b 100 81.8% Whiteb BMI: mean 26.9 (SD 7.2) kg/m2b
Losina et al, 2017 [39]

Single condition feasibility study

6-month workplace program to increase PA among sedentary hospital employees through individual and team-based financial incentives

BCTs: self-monitoring, goal setting, and rewards

 		292 38.0 (11.0) 83 62% White; 14% Black; 10% Asian; 7% Hispanic; 7% Other 32% normal weight; 30% overweight; 38% obese
Mahar et al, 2015 [40]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) Fitbit and (2) no Fitbit

10-week intervention examined effects of movement technology on college students’ PA

BCTs: self-monitoring

 		75 19.4 (1.2) NR NR NR
Measurement only
Chen and Pu, 2014 [41]

RCT with 3 conditions: (1) competition, (2) cooperation or (3) hybrid

One-week mobile app intervention to help promote exercise in pairs and earn badges based on performance

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, goal setting, and rewards

 		36 20-30 58 NR 2.8% underweight, 94% normal weight, 2.8% obese
Pagkalos et al, 2017 [42]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

5-week pilot study to monitor young adults’ exercise via a custom-built Facebook app for activity self-reporting

BCTs: self-monitoring and social support

 		49 24.0 (7.0) NR NR BMI: mean 22.5 (SD 3.0) kg/m2
Ptomey et al, 2018 [43]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) exercise once a week and (2) exercise twice a week

12-week at-home intervention to increase MVPAg using videoconferencing for groups of adults with Down syndrome

BCTs: self-monitoring, behavioral practice, and social support

 		27 27.9 (7.1) 41 10% ethnic minorities Group 1 BMI: mean 35.4 (SD 9.7) kg/m2; Group 2 BMI: mean 31.4 (SD 6.8) kg/m2
Walsh and Golbeck, 2014 [44]

Within-subject crossover study with 3 conditions: (1) social game using Fitbit steps as currency, (2) social interaction experience, and (3) control

30-day web-based intervention

Participants in the social interaction could interact or communicate and share their PA levels with friends

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, and social comparison

 		74 37.7 (10.2) 59 NR NR
Yoon et al, 2018 [45]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

Observational PA data collected from participants over first 6 months

Participants were sent a personalized email message about their activity to inform them of current PA levels and encourage increase in the last 6 months

BCTs: self-monitoring and feedback on behavior

 		79 31.9 (9.6) 59 29.2% Hispanic NR
Intervention and measurement
Choi, 2016 [46]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention mobile app+Fitbit and (2) Fitbit

12-week intervention with pregnant women between 10 and 20 weeks of gestation

After an initial 30-min in-person intervention session, participants received daily message or video, encouragement, and activity diary through the app

BCTs: self-monitoring, shaping knowledge, and written persuasion to boost self-efficacy

 		30 33.7 (2.6) 100 43% White; 40% Asian; 10% Hispanic; 7% Black BMI (prepregnancy): mean 27.7 (SD 3.7) kg/m2
Chung et al, 2017 [47]

Single-group pre-post design stratified into 2 groups: (1) overweight or obese group and (2) healthy weight group

2-month intervention where participants received Twitter messages to encourage PA and healthy eating, photo-based messages, infographics, and website links related to healthy lifestyle behaviors

BCTs: self-monitoring, shaping knowledge, and written persuasion to boost self-efficacy

 		12 19-20 67 50% White; 33% Black; 8% Asian; 8% American Indian Group 1 BMI range: 25-35 kg/m2; Group 2 BMI range: 22-24.9 kg/m2
Gilmore et al, 2017 [48]

RCT for postpartum women with 2 conditions: (1) WICh standard care (WIC Moms) and (2) WIC standard care and personalized weight management via a smartphone (E-Moms)

E-Moms group was given access to the SmartLoss SmartPhone app that included near real-time weight and activity monitoring, scheduled delivery of health information, and interventionist feedback

BCTs: self-monitoring, feedback on behavior

 		35 26.0 (5.4) 100 74% African American BMI: mean 32 (SD 3) kg/m2 (range 25.6-37.0  kg/m2)
Halliday et al, 2017 [49]

Pre-post study design

A goal-focused exercise program that included weekly phone or face-to-face coaching to reinforce walking goals, as well as an optional 1-h supervised group walk on 2 occasions per week

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, behavioral practice, behavior counseling, goal setting

 		15 38.3 (6.4) 60 80% Caucasian BMI: mean 30.4 (SD 6.4) kg/m2
Florence et al, 2016 [50]

RCT with 3 conditions: (1) group 1 (Fitbit+modules), (2) group 2 (Fitbit+modules+a social media-based game), (3) control group with just educational modules

14-week intervention for first-year medical students where daily steps and sleep hours were monitored in groups 1 and 2 during weeks 1-8

From week 9, all 3 groups had access to Fitbit Flex and the game platform, and students’ daily steps and sleep time were monitored until week 14 by Fitbit Flex

BCTs: self-monitoring and social support

 		300 18-19 58 NR NR
Miragall et al, 2017 [51]

RCT with 3 conditions: (1) IMIi+PED condition (access to IMI and use of a pedometer), (2) IMI condition (access to IMI and use of a blinded pedometer), and (3) control condition (use of a blinded pedometer)

3-week IMI conducted with sedentary or low-active students to increase motivation and set individualized PA goals

BCTs: self-monitoring, goal setting, and verbal persuasion about self-efficacy

 		76 22.2 (3.7) 86 NR BMI: mean 21.7 (SD 3.2) kg/m2
Schrager et al, 2017 [52]

Pre-post cohort study

1-month intervention where emergency medicine residents were asked to wear a Fitbit to assess its effects on their PA levels

BCTs: self-monitoring

 		30 Median age: 28 47 NR NR
Thorndike et al, 2014 [53]

2-phase intervention: phase 1 was a 6-week RCT and phase 2 was a 6-week nonrandomized team steps competition

12-week intervention that provided medical residents with free access to a fitness center, weekly one-hour personal training sessions, and up to 2 individual appointments with a Be Fit staff nutritionist

BCTs: self-monitoring and shaping knowledge

 		108 29 (23-37) 54 66% White BMI: mean 24.1 (range 17.8-35.6) kg/m2
Washington et al, 2014 [54]

Pre-post study design

3-week intervention in which participants won prizes for wearing their Fitbit and meeting experimenter-determined step criteria

BCTs: self-monitoring, goal setting, and rewards

 		13 18-26 67 NR NR
West et al, 2016 [55]

Quasi-experimental study design

9-week intervention where undergraduate students were assigned to either (1) a behavioral weight gain prevention intervention (healthy weight) or (2) an HPVj awareness intervention

8 lessons on behavioral strategies to maintain weight and avoid obesity were delivered via electronic newsletters and Facebook postings

BCTs: self-monitoring and shaping knowledge

 		58 21.6 (2.2) 81 90% White BMI: mean 24.0 (SD 5.1) kg/m2
Zhang and Jemmott, 2019 [56]

Pilot RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

3-month intervention in small groups with mobile app to track group’s PA data and engage with others

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, and social comparison

 		91 26.8 (5.1) 100 100% African American BMI: mean 31.6 (SD 8.2) kg/m2
Middle adulthood (41-64 years)
Intervention only
Amorim et al, 2019 [57]

Pilot RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

6-month intervention with PA booklet, health coaching sessions, app, and Fitbit

BCTs: self-monitoring, behavioral counseling, and shaping knowledge

 		68 58.4 (13.4) 50 NR BMI: mean 28 (SD 5.5) kg/m2
Butryn et al, 2014 [58]

Single-group pre-post design

6 months group-based intervention with a web platform component to facilitate social connectivity

BCTs: self-monitoring and social support

 		36 54 (7.18) 100 62% Caucasian BMI: mean 32.7 (SD 7.32) kg/m2
Cadmus-Bertram al et, 2015 [59]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention (2) comparison (standard pedometer only)

16-week web-based self-monitoring intervention for inactive, postmenopausal women

Content combined self-monitoring with self-regulatory skills, such as goal setting and frequent feedback

BCTs: self-monitoring, knowledge shaping, self-regulation, goal setting, and feedback

 		51 60.0 (7.1) 100 92% non-Hispanic Whiteb BMI: mean 29.2 (SD 3.5) kg/m2
Cadmus-Bertram et al, 2019 [60]

Pilot RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) comparison

12-week multi-component intervention for cancer survivors and support partners with Fitbit linked to electronic health records

BCTs: self-monitoring and social support

 		50 54.4 (11.2) 96 94% non-Hispanic White; 2% Hispanic; 2% Black; 2% Multiracial BMI: mean 32.2 (SD 7.4) kg/m2
Dean et al, 2018 [20]

Quasi-experimental pilot study

8 weekly small group sessions

Each 90-min session had a group discussion and an exercise component

BCTs: self-monitoring, knowledge shaping, and social support

 		40 46.9 (9.8) 0 100% African American 67% obese
Duncan et al, 2020 [61]

RCT with 3 conditions: (1) enhanced, (2) traditional, and (3) control

6-month intervention for adults with overweight or obesity delivered via the app with educational content, dietary consultation, Fitbit, and scales

Enhanced group received additional sleep intervention content via the app

BCTs: self-monitoring, knowledge shaping, goal setting, and behavioral counseling

 		116 44.5 (10.5) 70.7 NR BMI: mean 31.7 (SD 3.9) kg/m2
Ellingson et al, 2019 [62]

Randomized feasibility trial with 2 conditions: (1) intervention with Fitbit and (2) Fitbit only

12-week intervention with motivational interviewing, habit education, and Fitbit

BCTs: self-monitoring and verbal persuasion to boost self-efficacy

 		91 41.7 (9.3) 53 79% White BMI: mean 29.6 (SD 6.3) kg/m2
Kandula et al, 2017 [63]

16-week community-based, pre-post intervention

Twice weekly group exercise classes, Fitbit Zip and web-based platform, goal setting, and classes on healthy eating

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, goal setting, and knowledge shaping

 		30 40 (5) 100 100% South Asian BMI: mean 30 (SD 3) kg/m2
Ross and Wing, 2016 [64]

Randomized pilot trial with 3 conditions: (1) tech, (2) tech+phone, and (3) self-monitoring

6-month intervention with one group receiving self-monitoring tools (eg, booklets or scale)

Tech group received Fitbit and tracked caloric intake through Fitbit app

Tech+phone group received same materials along with 14 calls regarding behavioral weight loss techniques

BCTs: self-monitoring, behavioral counseling, and knowledge shaping

 		80 51.1 (11.7) 86 84% Non-Hispanic White BMI: mean 33 (SD 3.4) kg/m2
Singh et al, 2020 [65]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) PA counseling, (2) PA counseling and Fitbit

12-week intervention for women with breast cancer that included a PA counseling session with exercise physiologist and educational booklet

BCTs: self-monitoring, behavioral counseling, and knowledge shaping

 		52 Group 1: 52.8 (9.5); Group 2: 49.5 (8.6) 100 NR Group 1: BMI: mean 28.5 (SD 5.2) kg/m2; Group 2: BMI: mean 28.7 (SD 6) kg/m2
Van Blarigan et al, 2019 [66]

Pilot RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

12-week intervention for cancer survivors with daily text messaging

BCTs: self-monitoring and cues

 		42 54 (11) 59 73% White, 12% Asian, 12% Native American or other, 2% Black BMI: mean 28.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2
Measurement only
Patel et al, 2017 [67]

12-week family-based RCT intervention

On the basis of behavioral economics and gamification principles, the intervention used points and levels (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) to encourage families to change their behavior and increase their PA levels

BCTs: self-monitoring, rewards, and social support

 		200 55.4 (NR) 56 100% Caucasian BMI: mean 27.2 (SD 5.1) kg/m2b
Robinson et al, 2019 [68]

Pilot RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

5-week study using implementation intentions to establish PA habits using personalized materials

BCTs: self-monitoring and knowledge shaping

 		63 49.4 (8.3) 72.6 NR NR
Schumacher et al, 2017 [69]

Single-group pre-post trial study

Partner-based PA program for women examining PA lapses, cognitive-affective responses to lapses, and the role of social support in PA

BCTs: self-monitoring and social support

 		20 50 (7.2) 100 95% Caucasian BMI: mean 30.9 (SD 8.9) kg/m2
Intervention and measurement
Adams et al, 2017 [70]

2×2 factorial, 4-month RCT with goal setting (adaptive vs static goals) and rewards (immediate vs delayed)

WalkIT trial delivered intervention components by SMS text messages on a daily basis with prompt-to-action messages (eg, tips, questions, or motivational or inspirational messages)

BCTs: self-monitoring, goal setting, shaping knowledge, persuasion to boost self-efficacy, and cues

 		96 41 (9.5) 77 81.3% Caucasian BMI: mean 34.1 (SD 6.18) kg/m2
Arigo, 2015 [71]

Single-group pre-post design

4-week web-based intervention in pairs

Participants have access to web-based modules and worksheets guiding them through seeking support and setting weekly PA goals

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, and goal setting

 		12 46 (13.1) 100 75% Caucasian BMI: mean 32.6 (SD 5.7) kg/m2
Arigo et al, 2015b [72]

Single-group pre-post design

6-week program predominantly web-based with a single face-to-face session introducing PA promotion skills

Participants were encouraged to communicate with their PA dyad partner and other participants

BCTs: self-monitoring, goal setting, and social support

 		20 50 (7.2) 100 90% Caucasian BMI: mean 30.9 (SD 8.9) kg/m2
Finkelstein et al, 2015 [73]

Randomized crossover design with 2 conditions: (1) message-on and (2) message-off

4-week web-based intervention targeted inactivity level with tailored text messages about sedentary time

BCTs: self-monitoring and cues

 		27 52 (12.0) 100 47% White; 47% African American BMI: mean 37.0 (SD 6.0) kg/m2
Fukuoka et al, 2018 [74]

Single-group pre-post trial, uncontrolled pilot study

8-week weight loss program for Latino

adults at risk for type 2 diabetes

Participants were provided with 2 in-person counseling sessions, Fitbit, use of the Fitbit app, and a Facebook group and were asked to track diet daily and weight twice per week

BCTs: self-monitoring, behavioral practice, and social support

 54 45.3 (10.8) 68.5 100% Latino BMI: mean 31.4 (SD 4.1) kg/m2
Gell et al, 2020 [75]

Pilot RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control with Fitbit

8-week intervention for cancer survivors with health coaching, text messaging, and Fitbit

BCTs: self-monitoring, behavioral counseling, and cues

 		59 61.4 (9) 81 98.5% non-Hispanic White, 1.2% Black or Hispanic BMI: mean 30.4 (SD 7) kg/m2
Gremaud et al, 2018 [76]

10-week RCT intervention comparing 2 arms: (1) Fitbit only and (2) Fitbit+MapTrek

MapTrek, mobile phone–based walking game leverages Fitbit to track users’ PA and motivate users to engage in virtual walking races in numerous places around the globe

BCTs: self-monitoring and feedback

 		146 40.6 (11.7)b 79.2b 91.7% Caucasianb BMI: mean 29.9 (SD 6.6) kg/m2b
Grossman et al, 2017 [77]

16-week behavioral pre-post pilot program for postmenopausal women

The program consisted of face-to-face group meetings every month, weekly weigh-ins, electronic check-ins, calorie-restricted diet, and high-intensity interval training

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, and behavioral practice

 		11 59.53 (11.7) 100 NR BMI: mean 32 (SD 2.53) kg/m2
Linke et al, 2019 [78]

One-arm pilot study

12-week intervention for veterans recovering from substance use disorder that included psychoeducation classes, gym membership, and Fitbit

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, and knowledge shaping

 		15 45 (9.7) 13 60% non-Hispanic White, 27% Black, 13% Hispanic NR
Meints et al, 2019 [79]

Prospective cohort study

26-week intervention for hospital employees to increase PA with financial incentives

Groups of 3 were formed and financial incentives were given if team members met goals

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, rewards, and goal setting

 		225 Black participants: 43 (10); White participants: 39 (12) 84 81% White; 19% Black Black participants: 84% had overweight or obesity; White participants: 68% had overweight or obesity
Painter et al, 2017 [80]

Retrospective analyses of 6 weight loss programs

Participants were taught self-management strategies and were given a Fitbit, Wi-Fi-enabled scale, digital food and exercise log, and access to expert coach via electronic messages

BCTs: self-monitoring and behavioral counseling

 		2113 44.54 (10.72) 59 NR BMI: mean 33.8 (SD 6.8) kg/m2
Reed et al, 2019 [81]

Randomized repeated-measures study with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

12-week intervention with self-regulatory PA strategies, weekly text messaging, and Fitbit

BCTs: self-monitoring, self-regulation, and cues

 		59 48 (NR) 79.3b 93.2% Whiteb Weight: mean 92.47 (SD 22.8) kgb
Wang et al, 2015 [82]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) text messaging+Fitbit and (2) Fitbit only

6-week intervention for adults with overweight and obesity receiving Fitbit and 3 daily SMS text messages prompting PA

BCTs: self-monitoring and cues

 		67 48.2 (11.7) 91 67% White; 16% Hispanic; 4% African American; 3% Asian; 3% Other BMI: mean 31 (SD 3.7) kg/m2
Willis et al, 2017 [83]

Randomized feasibility study with 2 conditions: (1) web-based social network delivery and (2) conference call delivery

6-month weight loss intervention

Web-based social network condition had 24 weekly web-based modules led by health educators

Conference call condition consisted of 24 weekly 60-min phone conferences

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, and knowledge shaping

 		70 47 (12.4) 84 24.3% minorities BMI: mean 36.2 (SD 4) kg/m2
Older adulthood (≥65 years)
Intervention only
Ashe et al, 2015 [84]

Randomized pilot trial with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) comparison (educational sessions)

6-month intervention to increase PA through social support, group-based education, and individualized PA prescription

BCTs: self-monitoring, knowledge shaping, and social support

 		25 64.1 (4.6) 100 NR BMI: mean 26.9 (SD 6.8) kg/m2b
Christiansen et al, 2020 [85]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

6-month intervention for total knee replacement patients that included physical therapy, Fitbit, step goals, and monthly call with physical therapist

BCTs: self-monitoring, goal setting, and behavioral counseling

 		43 67 (7) 53.4 91% White BMI: mean 31.5 (SD 5.9) kg/m2
Kenfield et al, 2019 [86]

Pilot RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control

12-week intervention for men with prostate cancer that included personalized health recommendations, Fitbit, study website, and text messages

BCTs: self-monitoring, knowledge shaping and cues

 		76 65 (NR) 0 84% White 41% overweight, 35% with obesity
Thompson et al, 2014 [21]

Randomized controlled crossover trial with 2 conditions: (1) immediate intervention and (2) delayed intervention

48-week total: 24-week intervention that combined accelerometers with exercise counseling and 24 weeks without intervention

Content included materials on exercise, goal setting, and tracking PA

BCTs: self-monitoring, goal setting, behavioral counseling, and knowledge shaping

 		48 79.5 (7.0) 81 NR Weight: mean 75.7 (SD 13.4) kgb
Measurement only
Rossi et al, 2018 [87]

Single-group study (survey and qualitative interviews)

Participants wore Fitbit for 30 days to evaluate acceptability and validity of the device in diverse cancer survivors

BCTs: self-monitoring

 		25 62 (9) 100 36% non-Hispanic White; 36% Hispanic; 16% non-Hispanic Black; 12% Asian BMI: mean 32 (SD 9) kg/m2
Schmidt et al, 2018 [88]

Single-group study

Participants wore Fitbit for 14 consecutive days and social cognitive factors, health issues, and views on aging were assessed

BCTs: self-monitoring

 		40 66.3 (3.19) 62.5 NR BMI: mean 25.19 (SD 3.52) kg/m2
Streber et al, 2017 [89]

RCT with 2 conditions: (1) intervention and (2) control with weekly gymnastics or cognitive training

12-week intervention with 90-min weekly sessions including PA program with social and cognitive activities and PA coaching program

BCTs: self-monitoring, social support, knowledge shaping, and behavioral counseling

 		87 76 (9.2) 78 NR NR
Intervention and measurement
Harkins et al, 2017 [90]

RCT with 4 conditions: (1) financial incentive, (2) social goals, (3) combined, and (4) control

16-week intervention to test use of financial incentives and donations on PA increase with 4-week follow-up that included pedometer, goal setting, and weekly feedback on goal attainment

BCTs: self-monitoring, rewards, goal setting, and feedback

 		94 80.3 74 98% Caucasian NR
McMahon et al, 2017 [91]

2×2 randomized factorial experiment with 4 conditions receiving PA protocol and Fitbit: (1) interpersonal BCSk, (2) intrapersonal BCS, (3) interpersonal and intrapersonal BCS, and (4) control based on receipt of interpersonal and intrapersonal behavior change strategies

8-week intervention with weekly 90-min meetings with all conditions receiving PA protocol, Fitbit, and workbook

BCTs: self-monitoring, knowledge shaping, and social support

 		102 79 (NR) 75 75% White; 25% Black NR
Vidoni et al, 2016 [92]

Randomized crossover trial with 2 conditions: (1) immediate intervention and (2) delayed intervention

16-week trial divided into 8-week intervention and 8-week baseline or maintenance phase data collection

Intervention included the use of a Fitbit device and PA prescription

BCTs: self-monitoring and goal setting

 		30 With cognitive impairment: 72.3 (5.2); without cognitive impairment: 69.6 (5.8) With cognitive impairment: 43; without cognitive impairment: 89 With cognitive impairment: 90% White; 10% African- American; without cognitive impairment: 100% White BMI (with cognitive impairment): mean 29.4 (SD 3.8) kg/m2; BMI (without cognitive impairment): mean 27.8 (SD 4.3) kg/m2

aBCT: behavior change technique.

bOnly intervention condition data reported.

cNR: not reported.

dPA: physical activity.

eRCT: randomized controlled trial.

fABT: acceptance-based therapy.

gMVPA: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

hWIC: women, infants, and children.

iIMI: internet-based motivational intervention.

jHPV: human papillomavirus.

kBCS: behavior change strategy.

Description of Fitbit use.

Study Fitbit Wear instructions Fitbit use adherence Fitbit used in comparison group? Other PAa measures
Minimum wear time criteria Rate Strategies to boost adherence
Childhood
Intervention only
Evans et al, 2017 [23] Zip (phase 1) and charge (phase 2) Phase 1: all waking hours 7 days/week; phase 2: 24 h, 7 days/week Minimum of 8 h/day Days participants were adherent in phase 1: 64.8%; days participants were adherent in phase 2: 73.4%b After-session meetings with study staff to sync their Fitbit data Yes; same for Fitbit-only comparison condition; no device for control group Sensewear, Armband Mini, and Jawbone
Mackintosh et al, 2016 [24] Zip Duration of intervention Entire duration of session 100% adherence (with staff monitoring) NRc N/Ad Accelerometry
Measurement only
Walther et al, 2018 [25] Charge HR 24 h for 7 days, including one weekend NR NR NR N/A Self-reporting
Intervention and measurement
Buchele Harris and Chen, 2018 [18] Charge HR Daily; 5 school days/week for 4 weeks Minimum of 14 h/day Average loss of 1-day data per person per week Log sheets record PA No NR
Harris et al, 2018b [26] Charge HR Daily; 5 school days/week for 4 weeks NR NR Devices were charged at the end of the week Yes; same use NR
Hayes and Van Camp, 2015 [27] Classic Duration of intervention recess session Entire duration of 20-min recess session 100% adherence (with staff monitoring) NR N/A Second Fitbit
Adolescence
Intervention only
Chen et al, 2017 [28] Flex Daily for 3 months NR NR Weekly text reminders and phone calls No Self-reporting of PA using the California Health Interview Survey
Gandrud et al, 2018 [29] NR NR NR NR Weekly reminders sent to upload data Yes NR
Mendoza et al, 2017 [30] Flex Daily for 10 weeks Minimum of 500 steps/day Days participants were adherent: 72% Text reminders sent every other day to encourage PA goals No Accelerometry
Measurement only
Haegele and Porretta, 2016 [31] Zip NR NR NR NR N/A NR
Meng et al, 2018 [32] Zip 7 days/week at baseline and post measures Minimum of 8 h/day NR Daily texts or email reminders Yes; device masked with duct-tape NR
Walther et al, 2018 [25] Charge Wear on the 2nd and 10th week of the intervention for 7 days, including 1 weekend 24 h NR NR N/A Self-reported days of 60-min PA
Intervention and measurement
Gaudet et al, 2017 [19] Charge HR Daily for 7 weeks Minimum of 10 h/day Median participant adherent 67% of intervention days NR Yes Accelerometry and self-reporting
Pope et al, 2018 [33] Flex Daily for 12 weeks NR 15% of students wore their Fitbit for <10 days; 36% never wore their Fitbit Weekly lottery to win US $10 Amazon gift cards, weekly email reminders, and in-person troubleshooting at school once a week Yes NR
Remmert et al, 2019 [34] Flex 2 Daily for 12 weeks NR Average number of days of valid Fitbit wear: 78 (out of 84 days)b NR Yes Accelerometry
Short et al, 2018 [35] Zip Daily for 7 days NR NR NR Yes NR
Van Woudenberg et al, 2018 [36] Flex Daily for 7 days Minimum of 1000 steps/day Days participants were adherent: 73.4% NR Yes NR
Early adulthood (18-40 years)
Intervention only
Bang et al, 2017 [37] Zip NR NR NR NR No IPAQe
Baruth et al, 2019 [38] Charge Daily for duration of intervention Minimum one day per week Fitbit worn on 93% of intervention weeks NR No Accelerometry
Losina et al, 2017 [39] Flex Daily for duration of intervention Minimum of 10 h/day NR NR N/A Self-reporting
Mahar et al, 2015 [40] Flex Daily for duration of intervention NR NR NR No Self-reporting
Measurement only
Chen and Pu, 2014 [41] Ultra and One Daily for 2 weeks NR NR Daily reminder to share experience of wearing Fitbit No NR
Pagkalos et al, 2017 [42] Zip Daily for duration of intervention NR NR NR No Self-reporting
Ptomey et al, 2018 [43] Charge HR During intervention sessions NR 100% (with staff supervision) NR No NR
Walsh and Golbeck, 2014 [44] Classic Daily for 10 days NR 73% of participants were adherent NR Yes; same use IPAQ
Yoon et al, 2018 [45] Flex Daily for duration of intervention NR Days participants were adherent: 66% NR Yes; same use Self-reporting
Intervention and measurement
Choi et al, 2016 [46] Ultra Daily for at least 10 h Minimum of 1000 steps/day Days participants were adherent: intervention: 78%; comparison: 80% Participants entered steps into their daily activity diary Yes; same use Self-reporting
Chung et al, 2016 [47] Zip Daily for duration of intervention NR Days participants were adherent: overweight group: 99%; normal weight group: 78% Study team sent Twitter message reminders N/A NR
Gilmore et al, 2017 [48] Zip Daily NR NR NR No NR
Halliday et al, 2017 [49] NR Daily for duration of intervention 100 or more steps per day 50.5%-82.9% of participants adhered to wearing Fitbit on a weekly basis Participants were invited to join a private group on the Fitbit website that allowed for data sharing N/A NR
Florence et al 2016 [50] Flex Daily for duration of intervention NR NR NR Yes; control group started Fitbit Flex on week 8 IPAQ
Miragall et al, 2017 [51] One Daily for duration of intervention NR N/A N/A Yes; blinded NR
Schrager et al, 2017 [52] Flex Daily for duration of intervention 100 or more steps per day Median number of eligible days where the participant recorded at least 100 steps was 27.5 (IQR 8) Participants were given a 2-week acclimatization period to wear and use the device N/A Self-reporting of PA
Thorndike et al, 2014 [53] Classic Duration of intervention 500 or more steps/day Percentage of worn days in each phase: 77% in phase 1 and 60% in phase 2 Weekly reminder emails to charge device and monetary incentives for high compliance rates Yes; blinded NR
Washington et al, 2014 [54] Classic Daily for duration of intervention NR 2 subjects had missing Fitbit data Participants earned opportunities to draw prizes and brought the device to the lab 3 times a week for charging and retrieving data N/A Self-reporting of PA
West et al, 2016 [55] Zip and Aria Daily for duration of intervention NR Students used their Fitbit for an average of 23.7 days (SD 15.2 days) NR No NR
Zhang and Jemmott, 2019 [56] Zip Daily for duration of intervention NR 16% of Fitbit data were missing during intervention period Daily notifications to wear Fitbit and log PA Yes; same use NR
Middle adulthood (41-64 years)
Intervention only
Amorim et al, 2019 [57] NR Daily N/A 96% reported wearing every day or most days NR No Accelerometry and IPAQ
Butryn et al, 2014 [58] Flex Daily for duration of intervention NR Participants wore 86% of days during intervention Public display of PA data N/A GT3X+accelerometers
Cadmus-Bertram et al, 2015 [59] One Daily for duration of intervention Minimum of 2000 steps/day NR NR No Accelerometry
Cadmus-Bertram et al, 2019 [60] Charhe HR or Charge 2 Daily N/A NR In-person instruction on Fitbit use No Accelerometry
Dean et al, 2018 [20] Flex Daily; duration of intervention NR Participants who were adherent to wear instructions: 70% Participants received 3 text messages weekly N/A Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors Questionnaire
Duncan et al, 2020 [61] Alta NR NR NR NR Yes, for both intervention groups; no, for control group Accelerometry and Active Australia Survey
Ellingson et al, 2019 [62] Charge Use at participants’ discretion for duration of intervention Minimum of 10 h/day NR Intervention group determined cues to remember to wear Fitbit and check data Yes; same use Accelerometry
Kandula et al, 2017 [63] Zip Daily NR NR NR N/A Actigraph Accelerometer and self-reported questionnaire
Ross and Wing, 2016 [64] Zip and Aria Daily NR Days participants were adherent: Tech: 76%; Tech+phone: 86% Fitbit sent weekly emails updating progress Fitbit used in one comparison group but not the other (pedometer used) NR
Singh et al, 2020 [65] Charge As desired to self-monitor and manage PA NR Average h worn: 17.3 h (SD 5.7 h) per 6.1 days (SD 0.8 days) per week Basic instruction on using and setting up Fitbit No Accelerometry and Active Australia Survey
Van Blarigan et al, 2019 [66] Flex Daily NR Participants wore Fitbit for 88% of study days N/A No Accelerometry
Measurement only
Patel et al, 2017 [67] Flex Daily At least 1000 steps/day 10.1% of missing observation days in intervention arm and 12.7% in control arm NR Yes NR
Robinson et al, 2019 [68] Zip Daily during waking hours NR NR Participants asked to sync Fitbit data daily Yes; same use NR
Schumacher et al, 2017 [69] Flex Daily Minimum of 100 steps/day 97% adherent to wear time criteria NR N/A NR
Intervention and measurement
Adams et al, 2017 [70] Zip Daily during waking hours NR NR Text step counts daily and random selection for monthly incentives for wearing their Fitbit regularly Yes IPAQ
Arigo, 2015 [71] Flex Daily; duration of intervention NR Days participants were adherent: 93% Badges for achieving PA milestones; participants were advised to check step progress daily N/A NR
Arigo et al, 2015b [72] Flex Daily for duration of intervention Defined as >100 steps in a day Participants wore 97% of days during intervention Instructions on device use, public display of steps data, and PA partner accountability NA NR
Finkelstein et al, 2015 [73] One Daily NR 3 participants did not provide Fitbit data Instructions and use of device before study for comfort and familiarity Yes Self-reporting
Fukuoka et al, 2018 [74] Zip Daily Minimum of 8 h/day NR NR N/A IPAQ short version
Gell et al, 2020 [75] One Daily for duration of intervention Minimum of 10 h/day Average days participants were adherent: 6 days/week NR Yes; same use Accelerometry
Gremaud et al, 2018 [76] Zip Daily during waking hours NR 64.6% wear time in Fitbit arm with a 16.5% increase for Fitbit+Map Trek arm Reminder system, which prompted each user to wear their Fitbit following nonwear days Yes NR
Grossman, et al 2017 [77] Charge HR Duration of intervention NR NR NR Yes NR
Linke et al, 2019 [78] Charge HR Daily for duration of intervention NR NR Participants met with study team to sync Fitbit weekly and problem-solve Fitbit-related issues N/A Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire
Meints et al, 2019 [79] Flex Duration of intervention Minimum of 10 h/day and 4 days/week 18 (out of 26) average valid weeks of Fitbit wear Participants earned monetary reward for accurate use of Fitbit during first 2 weeks N/A NR
Painter et al, 2017 [80] NR Daily use NR NR NR NR NR
Reed et al, 2019 [81] Charge 2 Daily during waking hours NR NR Basic instruction on using and setting up Fitbit Yes; same use Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire
Wang et al, 2015 [82] One Duration of intervention Minimum of 10 h/day Nontypical days (not meeting wear time criteria) ranged from 5%-9% NR Yes Accelerometry
Willis et al, 2017 [83] Flex Daily NR NR NR Yes Accelerometry and self-reporting
Older adulthood (≥65 years)
Intervention only
Ashe et al, 2015 [84] One Daily for 26 weeks NR NR NR No Accelerometry
Christiansen et al, 2020 [85] Zip Daily during waking hours NR 60% of intervention group monitored steps at least 80% of study time In-person instruction of Fitbit use No Accelerometry
Kenfield et al, 2019 [86] One Duration of intervention NR Fitbits worn 98% of days during intervention NR No Accelerometry and self-reporting
Thompson et al, 2014 [21] NR Daily for 48 weeks NR NR NR Yes; same use Accelerometry
Measurement only
Rossi et al, 2018 [87] Alta At all times for 30 days; remove only for bathing and sleeping NR Participants wore median of 93% of 30 days Staff called participants after 1 week N/A Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire
Schmidt et al, 2018 [88] Charge HR 14 consecutive days during waking hours NR 2 participants excluded for not wearing the device for a week 3 home visits N/A NR
Streber et al, 2017 [89] Zip During waking hours for 7 consecutive days Minimum of 8 h/day NR No charging and no turning off and on Yes; same use Self-reporting
Intervention and measurement
Harkins et al, 2017 [90] Ultra Daily NR NR Daily email or text message and financial incentives for meeting goal Yes; same use Self-reporting
McMahon et al, 2017 [91] One During waking hours for 7 consecutive days NR Average hours worn at baseline: 13.01 (SD 1.87) Participants asked to document days or times monitor was used; staff reviewed documentation and data Yes; same use Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors Questionnaire
Vidoni et al, 2016 [92] Zip During waking hours NR NR Staff made biweekly phone calls and additional calls if no activity for 3 days Yes; device masked for 8 weeks versus 1 week 6-min walk test, mini-physical performance test, and battery of timed physical tasks

aPA: physical activity.

bOnly the reported intervention condition data.

cNR: not reported.

dN/A: not applicable.

eIPAQ: International Physical Activity Questionnaire.

 Childhood (9-12 Years) General Study Characteristics

The 6 childhood studies had sample sizes ranging from 6 to 116 participants and were either single-group (n=3) or quasi-experimental designs (n=3). All studies were conducted in a school setting, and when appropriate, tried to integrate the intervention sessions into regular, daily school activities, including class sessions and recess periods. The most commonly used behavior change techniques were goal setting (through individual and group challenges) and positive reinforcement (through rewards). The duration of the intervention ranged between 4 and 12 weeks.

 Fitbit Use

The most commonly used Fitbit model was the Fitbit Charge, which was used in 4 of the 6 interventions [18,23,25,26]. A total of 3 studies used Fitbits for both intervention and measurement purposes, 2 for intervention only, and 1 for measurement only. Participants in the comparison condition used Fitbit devices in only one of the 3 quasi-experimental studies.

 Wear Time and Adherence

In total, 5 of the 6 interventions instructed participants to wear the device for a specific period. A total of 2 studies restricted device wear time to in-school supervised intervention sessions and reported that 100% of participants adhered to the device wear protocol, largely because of study staff monitoring [24,27]. The 2 interventions instructed participants to wear their Fitbits only during school days for the duration of the intervention [18,26]. In one study, participants were asked to wear the device for 24 hours during a 7-day period [25]. Applying a wear time criterion of 8 hours per day, one study reported that participants were adherent on 65%-73% of intervention days [23].

 Adolescence (13-17 Years) General Study Characteristics

The 11 adolescent studies had sample sizes ranging from 6 to 388 participants. In total, 6 of the interventions used a randomized controlled trial design, 3 were quasi-experimental, and 2 used a single-group design. In total, 4 studies used an electronic or web-based platform for intervention delivery, including 3 that used mobile apps for data collection and the delivery of intervention content [28,29,33,36] and 1 that used Facebook as a web-based platform to encourage interactions between participants [30]. A total of 7 studies were delivered in a school setting [19,25,31-34,36]. Across all studies, the most commonly used behavioral change techniques were goal setting, self-monitoring, and knowledge shaping. The study duration varied between 4 weeks and 24 months.

 Fitbit Use

The most commonly used Fitbit model was the Fitbit Flex, which was used in 5 of the 12 interventions [28,30,33,34,36]. The Fitbit Zip was the second most commonly used device (in 3 studies [31,32,35]). A total of 5 studies used Fitbits for both intervention and measurement purposes, 3 for intervention only, and 3 for measurement only. In 7 of the 10 studies with multiple conditions, participants in the comparison condition used Fitbit devices.

 Wear Time and Adherence

Overall, 5 studies instructed participants to wear the device daily for the entire duration of the study [19,28,30,33,34], 4 studies instructed participants to wear the device for 7-day data collection periods only [25,32,35,36], and the remaining 2 studies did not report wear instructions [29,31,48]. Moreover, 5 studies used a minimum wear time criterion that was defined by either the number of hours (eg, 8 hours, 10 hours, or 24 hours per day) or steps (eg, 500 or 1000 steps per day) [19,30,32,35,36]. In addition, 3 studies reported the percentage of intervention days on which a specific minimum wear criterion was met (67.3% [19], 71.5% [30], and 73.4% [36]). One study excluded participants from the analysis who did not meet the wear time criterion [32]. One intervention that did not use the minimum wear time criterion was able to report an average number of days of valid Fitbit wear of 78.1 (SD 8.6; of a maximum of 84 days) for intervention participants [34]. Another study without a minimum wear time criterion reported that 36% of participants never wore their Fitbit [33].

 Strategies to Boost Wear Time

Strategies to boost wear time included providing participants with oral and written instructions for Fitbit use [19,32]. Some studies also sent participants daily or weekly text messages or emails to encourage consistent use, meeting PA goals, or data upload [28-30,32]. In one study, a weekly lottery was used to reward participants with gift cards [33].

 Other Measures of PA

Furthermore, 3 studies assessed PA with accelerometers at data collection time points [19,30,34], and 3 studies used self-report measures of PA [19,25,28].

 Early Adulthood (18-40 Years) General Study Characteristics

The 20 eligible studies for adults aged 18-40 years had a range of sample sizes of participants. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were the most commonly used study design (11/20, 55% studies), followed by single-group study designs (5/20, 25% studies). In total, 12 of the 20 studies used mobile apps, web-based platforms, emails, or text messages for intervention delivery [41-44,46-51,55,56]. Of these studies, 3 encouraged web-based interactions between participants [41,44,47]. In total, 8 of the 20 studies used a campus- or workplace-based approach to intervention delivery [37,39,40,50-53,55]. Strategies for behavioral change included competition or challenges, both at the individual and group levels, and self-monitoring, social support, and goal setting. The study duration ranged from 1 week to 12 months.

 Fitbit Use

The most commonly used Fitbit models were Fitbit Zip and Flex, which were used in 11 of the 20 studies [37,39,40,42,45,47,48,50,52,55,56]. Furthermore, 10 studies used Fitbits for both intervention and measurement purposes, 4 for intervention only, and 5 for measurement only. In 6 of the 15 studies with multiple conditions, participants in the comparison condition used Fitbit devices.

 Wear Time and Adherence

All but 3 studies [37,41,44] instructed participants to wear the device daily, either at all times or during waking hours, for the duration of the intervention. Furthermore, 2 studies instructed participants to wear the device for a specific data collection period [41,44]. Different metrics were used to report adherence to daily wear instructions. There were 3 studies that reported the percentage of intervention days in which participants were adherent: 66% [45], 73% [44], and 78%-99% [47]. Another study reported that, on average, participants were adherent on 23.7 (SD 15.2) days (of 63 days) [55]. One study instructed participants to wear the device only during intervention sessions, and 100% of the participants were adherent [43]. Minimum wear time criteria were also used to report adherence. One study with a minimum wear time criterion of 1000 steps per day reported that participants met the criterion on 78% of intervention days [46], whereas another study in which the minimum wear time criterion was set at 500 steps per day reported that participants met the criterion on 60%-70% of intervention days [53]. A minimum criterion of 100 steps per day allowed one study to report a median number of 27.5 days (of 30) on which participants were adherent [52]. Another study with the same minimum wear time criterion reported that 51%-83% of participants were adherent [49]. With a minimum wear criterion of one day per week, one study reported that participants were adherent on 93% of intervention weeks on average [38].

 Strategies to Boost Wear Time

Strategies to boost wear time included sending daily emails to inquire about Fitbit use experience [41], prompting participants to enter daily Fitbit data into an app [46], asking participants to share Fitbit data publicly [49], or sending daily reminder messages and instructions on Fitbit use [47]. Some studies provided participants with opportunities to win incentives based on compliance rates [53,54].

 Other Measures of PA

A total of 10 studies asked participants to self-report their PA using instruments such as the International PA Questionnaire, the Stanford Brief PA Survey, and the 30-day PA Recall [37,39,40,42,44-46,50-52,54-56]. Only 1 study used an additional objective measure of PA (ie, accelerometer [38]).

 Middle Adulthood (41-64 Years) General Study Characteristics

The sample sizes in the 28 middle adulthood studies ranged from 11 to 2113 participants. Most of the studies were RCTs (17/28, 61%), and 20 interventions used technology (eg, texts, apps, and social media) for intervention delivery [57,58,61,63,64,66,67,70-77,80-83,93]. The most common behavior change techniques used were self-monitoring, social support, behavioral counseling, and goal setting. The study duration ranged from 4 weeks to 6 months.

 Fitbit Use

The most commonly used device was the Fitbit Flex, which was used in 9 studies [20,58,66,67,69,71,72,79,83]. There were 14 studies that used Fitbit for both intervention and measurement purposes, 11 for intervention only, and 3 for measurement only. Of the 18 studies with multiple conditions, 13 provided participants in the comparison condition with Fitbit devices.

 Wear Time and Adherence

All but 3 studies [61,62,65] instructed participants to wear the device daily, either at all times or during waking hours, for the duration of the intervention. Among them, 2 studies reported the percentage of participants who were adherent to daily wear instructions: 96% [57] and 70% [20]. Other studies reported the percentage of days on which participants were adherent to wear instructions: 86% [58], 88% [66], 97% [71], 93% [72], and 76%-86% [64]. Furthermore, 9 studies also used a minimum wear time criterion defined by either the number of hours (eg, 8 or 10 hours per day) or steps (eg, 100 or 2000 steps per day) [59,62,67,69,71,74,75,79,82]. With a minimum wear time criterion of 100 steps per day, 1 study reported that 97% of the participants were adherent [69]. A minimum wear criterion of 10 hours per day allowed another study to report 18 of 26 average valid weeks of Fitbit wear [79], whereas another study used the same criterion to report that participants were adherent to the criterion on 6 days per week on average [75]. A minimum criterion of 10 hours per day was also used in another study to report 5%-9% of days on which participants did not meet the criterion on average [82]. Similarly, with a minimum wear time criterion of 1000 steps per day, another study reported 10.1%-12.7% of missing observation days [67]. Allowing participants to self-monitor PA as desired, one study reported the average hours worn of 17.3 (SD 5.7) hours per 6.1 (SD 0.8) days per week [65]. Another study excluded 3 participants who provided no Fitbit data [73].

 Strategies to Boost Wear Time

Various strategies were used to promote Fitbit wear, including weekly texts to encourage PA based on Fitbit data [20], weekly emails providing activities’ progress summaries [64], asking participants to sync Fitbit data daily [68], providing incentives for wearing Fitbit regularly [70], public display of Fitbit data [58,71], and instructions on device use [71,73].

 Other Measures of PA

Objective measures to assess PA were used in 12 studies [57-63,65,66,75,82,83], whereas self-reported measures were used in 11 studies [20,57,61,63,65,70,73,74,78,81,83].

 Older Adulthood General Study Characteristics

The 10 older adulthood studies had sample sizes ranging from 25 to 102 participants, and most (8/10, 80%) were RCTs. Studies with older adults used individual and group-based approaches for intervention delivery. In addition to encouraging individualized PA goal setting or prescribing exercises, 3 studies involved regular phone calls made by study counselors or coaches [21,85,92]. One study provided participants with access to a study website and used text messages for intervention delivery [86]. Interventions providing PA education were often delivered in a group setting through a community-based approach, which allowed for the use of social support as a behavioral change technique [84,89,91]. Other behavioral change techniques included goal setting, behavioral counseling, and self-monitoring.

 Fitbit Use

Different Fitbit devices were used across studies, including Classic, Zip, Ultra, Charge HR, and One, with none being predominant. In addition, 3 studies used Fitbit for both intervention and measurement purposes, 4 for intervention only, and 3 for measurement only. Of the 8 studies with multiple conditions, 5 provided participants in the comparison condition with Fitbit devices.

 Wear Time and Adherence

All but 2 studies [89,91] instructed participants to wear the device daily, either at all times or during waking hours, for the duration of the intervention. Using daily wear instructions, the number of days the device worn was commonly reported either as an average (6.6, SD 1.1 over 7 days) [91] or as a median (93% over 30 days) [94]. One study reported that 60% of participants in the intervention group used Fitbit at least 80% of the study time [85], whereas another study simply reported that Fitbit was worn on 98% of days during the intervention [86]. One study used a minimum wear time criterion (8 hours per day) but did not report adherence to the criterion [89]. One study excluded 2 participants who did not wear the device for at least half of the instructed wear period (14 days) [88].

 Strategies to Boost Wear Time

Strategies used to promote wear time adherence included providing participants with wear instructions and reminders via phone calls and text messages [85,87,90,92]. Some studies also asked participants to upload PA data on a daily basis or to document the device wear time and day [89,91].

 Other Measures of PA

All but one study [88] used an additional measure of PA. Although self-reporting (using different scales) was the most common measure, which was used in 6 studies [86,89-92,94], accelerometers were used in 4 studies [21,84-86]. One study used a physical performance test along with a walk test [92].

 Discussion Principal Findings

This study reviewed the use of Fitbit devices in PA intervention studies across the life course. In addition to differences in study designs and intervention delivery methods, our results indicate considerable heterogeneity in Fitbit use within and between developmental stages. From early to older adulthood, most studies instructed participants to wear their Fitbit daily, either at all times or during waking hours, for the duration of the intervention. Studies conducted among children and adolescents tended to specify more limited device wear periods (eg, 24 hours for 7 days). Within developmental stages, our findings also suggest a lack of consistency in the definition of wear time criteria, which sometimes were used to report different adherence metrics or to exclude incomplete data from study analyses. A total of 8 different types of Fitbit devices were used across all age groups, with Fitbit Flex and Zip being the most predominant and some seemingly discontinuing use as newer devices became available. Regardless of intended Fitbit use (ie, measurement vs intervention tool), strategies to boost wear time were similar across stages, and the most commonly used strategies included sending participants reminders through texts or emails and asking participants to log their steps or sync their Fitbit data daily. Overall, the heterogeneity in Fitbit use across PA intervention studies reflects its relative novelty in the field of research.

Across all stages, based on the taxonomy developed by Lyons et al [95], the most common behavior change techniques used were self-monitoring and goal setting, regardless of the intended device use. This aligns with previous findings indicating goal setting and self-monitoring as the most commonly used behavior change techniques in studies with activity trackers [96]. As a self-monitoring technology, Fitbit devices provide real-time feedback that has the potential to stimulate behavior change. Self-monitoring allows participants to establish and track goals that were commonly operationalized through individual or group step count challenges. For example, a classroom-based study in children used individual step goals consistent with achieving 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day [23]. Additional behavioral change techniques appeared to be developmentally targeted. For example, among children, rewards for meeting step goals were often provided (eg, accruing points toward gift card balance). Through the use of social media platforms, adolescents and adults were provided with performance-based, web-based badges [41,97]. Among older adults, group-based PA education along with individual PA coaching or counseling provided social support to encourage the initiation and maintenance of behavior change [89].

Similar to behavior change techniques, the heterogeneity we observed regarding wear instructions and criteria also seemed to be because of developmental considerations. Most studies conducted among children and adolescents opted for instructions that required the device to be worn daily (8-24 hours) for a set data collection period (5-14 days); these studies did not set specific wear time criteria for inclusion in the analyses. Our findings align with previous results indicating a considerable reduction in the use of wearable trackers in youth following the first 2 weeks [19,98]. As such, limited device wear time in children and adolescents could potentially be a strategy that aims at capitalizing on wear patterns and usability trends in these groups. Studies conducted during early and middle adulthood tended to specify a minimum wear time criterion for inclusion in analyses based on specific numbers of steps or hours, in addition to daily wear instructions. However, studies conducted in older adults did not set minimum wear time criteria and instructed participants to wear the device daily during waking hours. The less rigid guidelines for device wear adherence among older adults could potentially be a way of increasing feasibility in populations who are less able to meet strict criteria and are less proficient in the use of technology [99].

Despite the importance of meeting a minimum threshold of wear time criteria to calculate a reliable estimate of PA, the results from this review also indicated a lack of consistency in the criteria used to define adherence to device wear within developmental stages. A systematic review that examined the length of device wear time required in PA interventions found that most studies conducted among adults did not report minimum device wear and that there was significant variation among studies reporting these criteria [22]. Corresponding to the lack of uniformity in wear time criteria, different metrics (eg, percentage, mean, and median) were used to report rates of adherence to wear instructions. If not met, the wear time criterion was sometimes used to exclude participants from the data analysis. However, many studies used the wear time criteria to report different metrics of adherence. Overall, the absence of clear reporting with standardized metrics significantly impaired efforts to assess overall adherence rates within developmental stages.

The most common pattern that emerged across studies was the use of reminder strategies to boost wear time, which did not differ by the intended device use (ie, intervention or measurement). Generally, texts and emails were sent on a daily or weekly basis as PA and Fitbit wear reminders. Manually logging or syncing Fitbit data on a daily basis was also a strategy to indirectly promote Fitbit wear on a daily basis. Results from previous studies indicate that, in addition to forgetting to wear their trackers [100], approximately 2% of study participants stopped using their devices each week altogether [101], and study participants also reported using their Fitbit less than 10% of the time following the end of wear-based incentives [102]. Therefore, these strategies are particularly essential given the evidence regarding decrease in Fitbit wear adherence over time in users and the need for reminder strategies to boost wear time [103].

Despite questions regarding the validity of Fitbits for assessing PA [104], most interventions in this review used Fitbit devices for both intervention and measurement purposes (39/75, 52%) or for data measurement purposes exclusively (15/75, 20%). Most studies (45/75, 63%) that were reviewed supplemented the use of Fitbit with additional objective (eg, accelerometers) or self-reported (eg, International PA Questionnaire) measures of PA. It is possible that the addition of other PA measures, even in studies that used Fitbit devices primarily as a measurement or data collection tool, was because of concerns about the uncertainty around the accuracy of measures provided by Fitbit devices [104]. In addition, the use of other measures (ie, accelerometry or self-reporting) to collect baseline or habitual activity [48] could also point to the perceived inaccuracy of data collected from commercially available trackers, which could have a potential impact on activity. Previous studies have also shown that commercially available trackers such as Fitbit devices often overestimate the time spent in MVPA compared with research-grade monitors [15,104,105].

However, the use of additional PA measures is not limited to addressing the accuracy issues. Results from a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of Fitbit-based interventions highlighted that the use of accelerometers and self-report, in addition to Fitbit, is often done to capture PA outcomes other than steps [106]. With the expansion of the use of Fitbit devices in PA intervention studies, previous studies have raised issues regarding their inability to capture PA constructs such as nonambulatory activities or energy expenditure [107]. In a recently published paper, Balbim et al [108] summarized the challenges and possible solutions to use Fitbit devices in mobile health intervention research. They described challenges and solutions at four different study phases: preparation, intervention delivery, data collection and analysis, and study closeout. For example, during the data collection phase, they point to the inaccuracy or unavailability of wear time data through Fitbit’s web API. They then discussed the potential solution of using heart rate data and pre-established rules for determining wear time and manually identifying gaps in heart rate data, indicating nonwear time. They also highlight the tedious and challenging nature of such an endeavor [108]. Thus, the use of additional PA measures (objective and subjective), despite increased burden on participants, allows for the efficient collection of different types of data, including valid wear time, information about body positions, sedentary behaviors, postural allocation, and the type of activity being performed [107,109-111].

 Strengths and Limitations

The primary limitation of this review is that the search for articles was restricted to articles available in the Fitabase library between 2012 and 2018 or on PubMed between 2019 and 2020. Given that the Fitabase library uses the systematic searching procedures of several databases (eg, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct), searching only PubMed for articles from 2019 to 2020 could have resulted in missed literature. In addition, this review was limited to intervention studies published in English and likely missed formative work that could provide important information regarding the design of Fitbit-based studies. Despite these limitations, this review provides insight into the current state of affairs in Fitbit use in research by focusing on different developmental stages and how the use of the device differs across those stages. Describing both study characteristics and the use of Fitbit devices provides insight into PA study designs across the lifespan and the different ways in which these monitoring devices are used.

 Conclusions

Insufficient PA across the lifespan is associated with an increased risk of numerous chronic diseases and is a major public health issue [1]. The prominence and relatively low cost of Fitbit devices have increased their use by the public and researchers as PA trackers. Although behavior change techniques and strategies to boost Fitbit wear time were similar across all studies reviewed, our findings indicate significant differences in wear instructions and metrics for reporting adherence rates. Although between-stage differences appear to be based on developmental considerations that aim to maximize device use in each age group, within-group differences appear to result from a lack of uniformity in metrics used to report rates of adherence and minimum wear time criteria. The use of additional PA data collection tools in most studies that were reviewed points to the accuracy issues raised by previous research focusing on Fitbits in PA interventions [104,105] and a reluctance to rely on Fitbits as the primary measurement device or for the assessment of habitual activity. However, additional PA measures are also used to capture PA constructs not measured by Fitbit devices (eg, MVPA, sedentary behaviors, and types of activity). As the use of monitoring devices continues to expand in the field of PA research, the lack of uniformity in study protocols and metrics of reported measures represents a major issue for purposes of comparison [112]. Given that clinical trial registries serve as a repository for researchers [113], there is a need for increased transparency in the prospective registration of PA intervention studies. This paper serves as a call for researchers using Fitbit devices to provide a clear rationale for the use of several PA measures and to specify the metrics that will be reported for each. By providing researchers with a synthesis of information on the use of Fitbit devices in PA intervention studies across the life course, this narrative review serves as a resource that may be used to inform the design of future trials involving Fitbit devices.

 Abbreviations API

application programming interface

 MVPA

moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

 PA

physical activity

 RCT

randomized controlled trial

None declared.

 Jake-Schoffman D Baskin M Promoting physical activity across the life span: progress and promise J Public Health Manag Pract 2019 25 1 30 1 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000927 30507802 00124784-201901000-00012 Guthold R Stevens G Riley L Bull F Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1·9 million participants Lancet Glob Health 2018 10 6 10 1077 86 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30357-7 Booth F Roberts C Laye M Lack of exercise is a major cause of chronic diseases Compr Physiol 2012 04 2 2 1143 211 10.1002/cphy.c110025 23798298 PMC4241367 Chen Y Sloan FA Yashkin AP Adherence to diabetes guidelines for screening, physical activity and medication and onset of complications and death J Diabetes Complicat 2015 11 29 8 1228 33 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.07.005 Piercy KL Troiano RP Ballard RM Carlson SA Fulton JE Galuska DA George SM Olson RD The physical activity guidelines for Americans J Am Med Assoc 2018 11 20 320 19 2020 8 10.1001/jama.2018.14854 30418471 2712935 Worldwide quaterly wearable device tracker IDC Corporate 2021-05-04 https://www.idc.com/tracker/showproductinfo.jsp?containerId=IDC_P31315 Fitbit 2019-12-09 https://www.fitbit.com/us/home Vailshery LS Fitbit unit sales worldwide 2010-2019 Statista 2021 2021-05-05 https://www.statista.com/statistics/472591/fitbit-devices-sold/ Fitbit reports 2019 fourth quarter and full year results Fitbit, Inc 2020 2021-05-05 https://investor.fitbit.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/Fitbit-Reports-2019-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-Results/default.aspx Brinton JE Keating MD Ortiz AM Evenson KR Furberg RD Establishing linkages between distributed survey responses and consumer wearable device datasets: a pilot protocol JMIR Res Protoc 2017 04 27 6 4 e66 10.2196/resprot.6513 28450274 v6i4e66 PMC5427248 Fitabase 2019-12-10 https://www.fitabase.com/ Guo F Li Y Kankanhalli M Brown M An evaluation of wearable activity monitoring devices Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Personal data meets distributed multimedia 2013 MM '13: ACM Multimedia Conference October, 2013 Barcelona Spain 31 4 10.1145/2509352.2512882 Dannecker K Sazonova N Melanson E Sazonov E Browning R A comparison of energy expenditure estimation of several physical activity monitors Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013 11 45 11 2105 12 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318299d2eb 23669877 PMC3800491 McArdle WD Katch FI Katch VL Ramirez E Peterson C Wu W Norman G Accuracy of the Fitbit pedometer for self-pacedprescribed physical activity Sports and Exercise Nutrition 4th Edition 2012 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 1 681 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 08 09 6 8 e10527 10.2196/10527 30093371 v6i8e10527 PMC6107736 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 18 12 1 159 10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1 26684758 10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1 PMC4683756 Takacs J Pollock CL Guenther JR Bahar M Napier C Hunt MA Validation of the Fitbit One activity monitor device during treadmill walking J Sci Med Sport 2014 09 17 5 496 500 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.10.241 24268570 S1440-2440(13)00472-6 Buchele Harris H Chen W Technology-enhanced classroom activity breaks impacting children's physical activity and fitness J Clin Med 2018 06 29 7 7 165 10.3390/jcm7070165 29966308 jcm7070165 PMC6068698 Gaudet J Gallant F Bélanger M A Bit of Fit: minimalist intervention in adolescents based on a physical activity tracker JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 07 06 5 7 e92 10.2196/mhealth.7647 28684384 v5i7e92 PMC5519831 Dean DA Griffith DM McKissic SA Cornish EK Johnson-Lawrence V Men on the move-nashville: feasibility and acceptability of a technology-enhanced physical activity pilot intervention for overweight and obese middle and older age African American men Am J Mens Health 2018 07 19 12 4 798 811 10.1177/1557988316644174 27099346 1557988316644174 PMC6131460 Thompson WG Kuhle CL Koepp GA McCrady-Spitzer SK Levine JA "Go4Life" exercise counseling, accelerometer feedback, and activity levels in older people Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2014 05 58 3 314 9 10.1016/j.archger.2014.01.004 24485546 S0167-4943(14)00005-3 Jake-Schoffman DE Silfee VJ Sreedhara M Rosal MC May CN Lopez-Cepero A Lemon SC Haughton CF Reporting of physical activity device measurement and analysis protocols in lifestyle interventions Am J Lifestyle Med 2019 07 17 155982761986217 10.1177/1559827619862179 Evans E Abrantes A Chen E Jelalian E Using novel technology within a school-based setting to increase physical activity: a pilot study in school-age children from a low-income, urban community Biomed Res Int 2017 2017 4271483 10.1155/2017/4271483 29670894 PMC5833882 Mackintosh K Mission possible: using ubiquitous social goal sharing technology to promote physical activity in children Malaysian J Move, Health Exerc 2016 10 18 5 2 10.15282/mohe.v5i2.115 Walther A Dunker T Franzen-Castle L Krehbiel M Increasing at-risk youth self-reported and objectively measured physical activity in an afterschool program J Fam Consum Sci 2018 03 01 110 1 59 63 10.14307/jfcs110.1.59 Harris HB Cortina KS Templin T Colabianchi N Chen W Impact of coordinated-bilateral physical activities on attention and concentration in school-aged children Biomed Res Int 2018 05 28 2018 2539748 10.1155/2018/2539748 29998131 PMC5994583 Hayes LB Van Camp CM Increasing physical activity of children during school recess J Appl Behav Anal 2015 09 29 48 3 690 5 10.1002/jaba.222 26119136 Chen J Guedes CM Cooper BA Lung AE Short-term efficacy of an innovative mobile phone technology-based intervention for weight management for overweight and obese adolescents: pilot study Interact J Med Res 2017 08 02 6 2 e12 10.2196/ijmr.7860 28768612 v6i2e12 PMC5559653 Gandrud L Altan A Buzinec P Hemphill J Chatterton J Kelley T Vojta D Intensive remote monitoring versus conventional care in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial Pediatr Diabetes 2018 02 21 19 6 1086 93 10.1111/pedi.12654 29464831 Mendoza JA Baker KS Moreno MA Whitlock K Abbey-Lambertz M Waite A Colburn T Chow EJ A Fitbit and Facebook mHealth intervention for promoting physical activity among adolescent and young adult childhood cancer survivors: a pilot study Pediatr Blood Cancer 2017 12 15 64 12 e26660 10.1002/pbc.26660 28618158 Haegele J Porretta D A leisure-time physical activity intervention for adolescents with visual impairments Res Q Exerc Sport 2016 2021-05-07 https://search.proquest.com/openview/e1e94139646d164224809faee1a60f4c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar%7B%5C&%7Dcbl=40785 Meng Y Manore M Schuna J Patton-Lopez M Branscum A Wong S Promoting healthy diet, physical activity, and life-skills in high school athletes: results from the WAVE ripples for change childhood obesity prevention two-year intervention Nutrients 2018 07 23 10 7 947 10.3390/nu10070947 30041446 nu10070947 PMC6073385 Pope L Garnett B Dibble M Lessons learned through the implementation of an eHealth physical activity gaming intervention with high school youth Games Health J 2018 04 7 2 136 42 10.1089/g4h.2017.0164 29393679 Remmert JE Woodworth A Chau L Schumacher LM Butryn ML Schneider M Pilot trial of an acceptance-based behavioral intervention to promote physical activity among adolescents J Sch Nurs 2019 12 13 35 6 449 61 10.1177/1059840518786782 30004269 PMC7021475 Short KR Chadwick JQ Cannady TK Branam DE Wharton DF Tullier MA Thompson DM Copeland KC Using financial incentives to promote physical activity in American Indian adolescents: a randomized controlled trial PLoS ONE 2018 6 1 13 6 e0198390 10.1371/journal.pone.0198390 van Woudenberg TJ Bevelander KE Burk WJ Smit CR Buijs L Buijzen M A randomized controlled trial testing a social network intervention to promote physical activity among adolescents BMC Public Health 2018 04 23 18 1 542 10.1186/s12889-018-5451-4 29685112 10.1186/s12889-018-5451-4 PMC5913789 Bang K Lee I Kim S Lim CS Joh H Park B Song MK The effects of a campus forest-walking program on undergraduate and graduate students' physical and psychological health Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017 07 05 14 7 728 10.3390/ijerph14070728 28678203 ijerph14070728 PMC5551166 Baruth M Schlaff RA Deere S Walker JL Dressler BL Wagner SF Boggs A Simon HA The feasibility and efficacy of a behavioral intervention to promote appropriate gestational weight gain Matern Child Health J 2019 12 20 23 12 1604 12 10.1007/s10995-019-02812-6 31541375 10.1007/s10995-019-02812-6 Losina E Smith SR Usiskin IM Klara KM Michl GL Deshpande BR Yang HY Smith KC Collins JE Katz JN Implementation of a workplace intervention using financial rewards to promote adherence to physical activity guidelines: a feasibility study BMC Public Health 2017 12 01 17 1 921 10.1186/s12889-017-4931-2 29195494 10.1186/s12889-017-4931-2 PMC5709939 Mahar M Nanney L Das B Raedeke T Vick G Rowe D Effects of an intervention using movement technology in a University physical activity class Med Sci Sports Exerc 2015 522 10.1249/01.mss.0000477869.71815.de Chen Y Pu P HealthyTogether: exploring social incentives for mobile fitness applications Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of Chinese CHI 2014 Chinese CHI '14: The Second International Symposium of Chinese CHI April, 2014 Toronto Ontario Canada 25 34 10.1145/2592235.2592240 Pagkalos I Kokkinopoulou A Weal M Petrou L Hassapidou M Exercise monitoring of young adults using a Facebook application Digit Health 2017 05 22 3 2055207617711286 10.1177/2055207617711286 29942601 10.1177_2055207617711286 PMC6001221 Ptomey LT Szabo AN Willis EA Gorczyca AM Greene JL Danon JC Donnelly JE Changes in cognitive function after a 12-week exercise intervention in adults with Down syndrome Disabil Health J 2018 07 11 3 486 90 10.1016/j.dhjo.2018.02.003 29501470 S1936-6574(18)30038-4 PMC6005720 Walsh G Golbeck J StepCity: a preliminary investigation of a personal informatics-based social game on behavior change Proceedings of the CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2014 CHI '14: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems April, 2014 Toronto Ontario Canada 2371 6 10.1145/2559206.2581326 Yoon S Schwartz JE Burg MM Kronish IM Alcantara C Julian J Parsons F Davidson KW Diaz KM Using behavioral analytics to increase exercise: a randomized N-of-1 study Am J Prev Med 2018 04 54 4 559 67 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.12.011 29429607 S0749-3797(17)30743-2 PMC5860951 Choi J Lee JH Vittinghoff E Fukuoka Y mHhealth physical activity intervention: a randomized pilot study in physically inactive pregnant women Matern Child Health J 2016 05 9 20 5 1091 101 10.1007/s10995-015-1895-7 26649879 10.1007/s10995-015-1895-7 PMC4826820 Chung AE Skinner AC Hasty SE Perrin EM Tweeting to health: a novel mHealth intervention using Fitbits and Twitter to foster healthy lifestyles Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2017 01 19 56 1 26 32 10.1177/0009922816653385 27317609 0009922816653385 Gilmore LA Klempel MC Martin CK Myers CA Burton JH Sutton EF Redman LM Personalized mobile health intervention for health and weight loss in postpartum women receiving women, infants, and children benefit: a randomized controlled pilot study J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2017 07 26 7 719 27 10.1089/jwh.2016.5947 28338403 PMC5512465 Halliday GC Miles GC Marsh JA Kotecha RS Alessandri AJ Regular exercise improves the well-being of parents of children with cancer Pediatr Blood Cancer 2017 12 19 64 12 e26668 10.1002/pbc.26668 28627013 H-Jennings F Clément M Brown M Leong B Shen L Dong C Promote students’ healthy behavior through sensor and game: a randomized controlled trial Med Sci Educ 2016 5 3 26 3 349 55 10.1007/s40670-016-0253-8 Miragall M Domínguez-Rodríguez A Navarro J Cebolla A Baños RM Increasing physical activity through an Internet-based motivational intervention supported by pedometers in a sample of sedentary students: a randomised controlled trial Psychol Health 2018 04 07 33 4 465 82 10.1080/08870446.2017.1368511 28880576 Schrager JD Shayne P Wolf S Das S Patzer RE White M Heron S Assessing the influence of a Fitbit physical activity monitor on the exercise practices of emergency medicine residents: a pilot study JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 01 31 5 1 e2 10.2196/mhealth.6239 28143805 v5i1e2 PMC5309436 Thorndike AN Mills S Sonnenberg L Palakshappa D Gao T Pau CT Regan S Activity monitor intervention to promote physical activity of physicians-in-training: randomized controlled trial PLoS One 2014 6 20 9 6 e100251 10.1371/journal.pone.0100251 24950218 PONE-D-14-08116 PMC4065028 Washington WD Banna KM Gibson AL Preliminary efficacy of prize-based contingency management to increase activity levels in healthy adults J Appl Behav Anal 2014 04 17 47 2 231 45 10.1002/jaba.119 24740477 West DS Monroe CM Turner-McGrievy G Sundstrom B Larsen C Magradey K Wilcox S Brandt HM A technology-mediated behavioral weight gain prevention intervention for college students: controlled, quasi-experimental study J Med Internet Res 2016 06 13 18 6 e133 10.2196/jmir.5474 27296086 v18i6e133 PMC4923588 Zhang J Iii JB Mobile app-based small-group physical activity intervention for young African American women: a pilot randomized controlled trial Prev Sci 2019 08 20 20 6 863 72 10.1007/s11121-019-01006-4 30788692 10.1007/s11121-019-01006-4 Amorim AB Pappas E Simic M Ferreira ML Jennings M Tiedemann A Carvalho-E-Silva AP Caputo E Kongsted A Ferreira PH Integrating Mobile-health, health coaching, and physical activity to reduce the burden of chronic low back pain trial (IMPACT): a pilot randomised controlled trial BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019 02 11 20 1 71 10.1186/s12891-019-2454-y 30744606 10.1186/s12891-019-2454-y PMC6371593 Butryn ML Arigo D Raggio GA Colasanti M Forman EM Enhancing physical activity promotion in midlife women with technology-based self-monitoring and social connectivity: a pilot study J Health Psychol 2016 08 10 21 8 1548 55 10.1177/1359105314558895 25488937 1359105314558895 Cadmus-Bertram LA Marcus BH Patterson RE Parker BA Morey BL Randomized trial of a Fitbit-based physical activity intervention for women Am J Prev Med 2015 09 49 3 414 8 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.020 26071863 S0749-3797(15)00044-6 PMC4993151 Cadmus-Bertram L Tevaarwerk AJ Sesto ME Gangnon R Van Remortel B Date P Building a physical activity intervention into clinical care for breast and colorectal cancer survivors in Wisconsin: a randomized controlled pilot trial J Cancer Surviv 2019 08 1 13 4 593 602 10.1007/s11764-019-00778-6 31264183 10.1007/s11764-019-00778-6 PMC6960011 Duncan M Fenton S Brown W Collins C Glozier N Kolt G Holliday E Morgan P Murawski B Plotnikoff R Rayward A Stamatakis E Vandelanotte C Burrows T Efficacy of a multi-component m-health weight-loss intervention in overweight and obese adults: a randomised controlled trial Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020 08 26 17 17 6200 10.3390/ijerph17176200 32859100 ijerph17176200 PMC7503928 Ellingson LD Lansing JE DeShaw KJ Peyer KL Bai Y Perez M Phillips LA Welk GJ Evaluating motivational interviewing and habit formation to enhance the effect of activity trackers on healthy adults' activity levels: randomized intervention JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 02 14 7 2 e10988 10.2196/10988 30762582 v7i2e10988 PMC6393778 Kandula NR Dave S De Chavez PJ Marquez DX Bharucha H Mammen S Dunaif A Ackermann RT Kumar S Siddique J An exercise intervention for South Asian mothers with risk factors for diabetes Transl J Am Coll Sports Med 2016 06 15 1 6 52 9 27617303 PMC5015884 Ross KM Wing RR Impact of newer self-monitoring technology and brief phone-based intervention on weight loss: a randomized pilot study Obesity (Silver Spring) 2016 08 01 24 8 1653 9 10.1002/oby.21536 27367614 PMC4963263 Singh B Spence RR Sandler CX Tanner J Hayes SC Feasibility and effect of a physical activity counselling session with or without provision of an activity tracker on maintenance of physical activity in women with breast cancer - a randomised controlled trial J Sci Med Sport 2020 03 23 3 283 90 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.09.019 31640924 S1440-2440(19)30244-0 Van Blarigan EL Chan H Van Loon K Kenfield SA Chan JM Mitchell E Zhang L Paciorek A Joseph G Laffan A Atreya CE Fukuoka Y Miaskowski C Meyerhardt JA Venook AP Self-monitoring and reminder text messages to increase physical activity in colorectal cancer survivors (Smart Pace): a pilot randomized controlled trial BMC Cancer 2019 03 11 19 1 218 10.1186/s12885-019-5427-5 30866859 10.1186/s12885-019-5427-5 PMC6417122 Patel MS Benjamin EJ Volpp KG Fox CS Small DS Massaro JM Lee JJ Hilbert V Valentino M Taylor DH Manders ES Mutalik K Zhu J Wang W Murabito JM Effect of a game-based intervention designed to enhance social incentives to increase physical activity among families: the BE FIT randomized clinical trial JAMA Intern Med 2017 11 01 177 11 1586 93 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3458 28973115 2655242 PMC5710273 Robinson SA Bisson AN Hughes ML Ebert J Lachman ME Time for change: using implementation intentions to promote physical activity in a randomised pilot trial Psychol Health 2019 02 30 34 2 232 54 10.1080/08870446.2018.1539487 30596272 PMC6440859 Schumacher LM Arigo D Thomas C Understanding physical activity lapses among women: responses to lapses and the potential buffering effect of social support J Behav Med 2017 10 5 40 5 740 9 10.1007/s10865-017-9846-y 28382571 10.1007/s10865-017-9846-y Adams MA Hurley JC Todd M Bhuiyan N Jarrett CL Tucker WJ Hollingshead KE Angadi SS Adaptive goal setting and financial incentives: a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial to increase adults' physical activity BMC Public Health 2017 03 29 17 1 1 16 10.1186/s12889-017-4197-8 28356097 10.1186/s12889-017-4197-8 PMC5372290 Arigo D Promoting physical activity among women using wearable technology and online social connectivity: a feasibility study Health Psychol Behav Med 2015 12 31 3 1 391 409 10.1080/21642850.2015.1118350 Arigo D Schumacher LM Pinkasavage E Butryn ML Addressing barriers to physical activity among women: a feasibility study using social networking-enabled technology Digit Health 2015 05 05 1 2055207615583564 10.1177/2055207615583564 29942539 10.1177_2055207615583564 PMC5999060 Finkelstein J Bedra M Li X Wood J Ouyang P Mobile app to reduce inactivity in sedentary overweight women Stud Health Technol Inform 2015 216 89 92 26262016 Fukuoka Y Vittinghoff E Hooper J A weight loss intervention using a commercial mobile application in Latino Americans-Adelgaza Trial Transl Behav Med 2018 09 08 8 5 714 23 10.1093/tbm/ibx039 29474702 4883377 PMC6128967 Gell NM Grover KW Savard L Dittus K Outcomes of a text message, Fitbit, and coaching intervention on physical activity maintenance among cancer survivors: a randomized control pilot trial J Cancer Surviv 2020 02 27 14 1 80 8 10.1007/s11764-019-00831-4 31776849 10.1007/s11764-019-00831-4 Gremaud AL Carr LJ Simmering JE Evans NJ Cremer JF Segre AM Polgreen LA Polgreen PM Gamifying accelerometer use increases physical activity levels of sedentary office workers J Am Heart Assoc 2018 07 03 7 13 e007735 10.1161/jaha.117.007735 Grossman J Arigo D Bachman J Meaningful weight loss in obese postmenopausal women: a pilot study of high-intensity interval training and wearable technology Menopause 2018 04 25 4 465 70 10.1097/GME.0000000000001013 29088015 Linke SE Hovsepians R Schnebly B Godfrey K Noble M Strong DR Isgro M Lindamer LA The Go-VAR (Veterans Active Recovery): an adjunctive, exercise-based intervention for veterans recovering from substance use disorders J Psychoactive Drugs 2019 01 17 51 1 68 77 10.1080/02791072.2018.1560518 30653409 Meints SM Yang HY Collins JE Katz JN Losina E Race differences in physical activity uptake within a workplace wellness program: a comparison of black and white employees Am J Health Promot 2019 07 26 33 6 886 93 10.1177/0890117119833341 30808208 PMC6699157 Painter SL Ahmed R Hill JO Kushner RF Lindquist R Brunning S Margulies A What matters in weight loss? An in-depth analysis of self-monitoring J Med Internet Res 2017 05 12 19 5 e160 10.2196/jmir.7457 28500022 v19i5e160 PMC5446667 Reed J Estabrooks P Pozehl B Heelan K Wichman C Effectiveness of the 5A's model for changing physical activity behaviors in rural adults recruited from primary care clinics J Phys Act Health 2019 12 01 16 12 1138 46 10.1123/jpah.2018-0477 31553946 jpah.2018-0477 Wang JB Cadmus-Bertram LA Natarajan L White MM Madanat H Nichols JF Ayala GX Pierce JP Wearable sensor/device (Fitbit One) and SMS text-messaging prompts to increase physical activity in overweight and obese adults: a randomized controlled trial Telemed J E Health 2015 10 21 10 782 92 10.1089/tmj.2014.0176 26431257 PMC4842945 Willis EA Szabo-Reed AN Ptomey LT Steger FL Honas JJ Al-Hihi EM Lee R Lee J Oh Y Washburn RA Donnelly JE Distance learning strategies for weight management utilizing online social networks versus group phone conference call Obes Sci Pract 2017 06 05 3 2 134 42 10.1002/osp4.96 28713582 OSP496 PMC5478801 Ashe MC Winters M Hoppmann CA Dawes MG Gardiner PA Giangregorio LM Madden KM McAllister MM Wong G Puyat JH Singer J Sims-Gould J McKay HA "Not just another walking program": Everyday Activity Supports You (EASY) model-a randomized pilot study for a parallel randomized controlled trial Pilot Feasibility Stud 2015 1 12 1 1 4 10.1186/2055-5784-1-4 27175291 PMC4862805 Christiansen MB Thoma LM Master H Voinier D Schmitt LA Ziegler ML LaValley MP White DK Feasibility and preliminary outcomes of a physical therapist-administered physical activity intervention after total knee replacement Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2020 05 08 72 5 661 8 10.1002/acr.23882 30908867 PMC6761055 Kenfield SA Van Blarigan EL Ameli N Lavaki E Cedars B Paciorek AT Monroy C Tantum LK Newton RU Signorell C Suh JH Zhang L Cooperberg MR Carroll PR Chan JM Feasibility, acceptability, and behavioral outcomes from a technology-enhanced behavioral change intervention (Prostate 8): a pilot randomized controlled trial in men with prostate cancer Eur Urol 2019 06 75 6 950 8 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.040 30638635 S0302-2838(18)31048-0 Rossi A Frechette L Miller D Miller E Friel C Van Arsdale A Lin J Shankar V Kuo DY Nevadunsky NS Acceptability and feasibility of a Fitbit physical activity monitor for endometrial cancer survivors Gynecol Oncol 2018 06 149 3 470 5 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.560 29692337 S0090-8258(18)30838-2 Schmidt LI Gabrian M Jansen CP Wahl HW Sieverding M Extending research on self-regulation of physical activity in older age: role of views on aging within an intensive ambulatory assessment scheme J Self-regul Regul 2018 4 43 59 10.11588/josar.2018.0.49362 Streber A Abu-Omar K Hentschke C Rütten A A multicenter controlled study for dementia prevention through physical, cognitive and social activities - GESTALT-kompakt Clin Interv Aging 2017 12 12 2109 21 10.2147/CIA.S141163 29276380 cia-12-2109 PMC5734238 Harkins KA Kullgren JT Bellamy SL Karlawish J Glanz K A trial of financial and social incentives to increase older adults' walking Am J Prev Med 2017 05 52 5 123 30 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.011 28062271 S0749-3797(16)30612-2 McMahon SK Lewis B Oakes JM Wyman JF Guan W Rothman AJ Assessing the effects of interpersonal and intrapersonal behavior change strategies on physical activity in older adults: a factorial experiment Ann Behav Med 2017 06 10 51 3 376 90 10.1007/s12160-016-9863-z 28188585 10.1007/s12160-016-9863-z PMC5634530 Vidoni ED Watts AS Burns JM Greer CS Graves RS Van Sciver A Black JR Cooper SK Nagely AC Uphoff E Volmer JM Bieberle NA Feasibility of a memory clinic-based physical activity prescription program J Alzheimer's Dis 2016 06 22 53 1 161 70 10.3233/jad-160158 Cadmus-Bertram L Marcus BH Patterson RE Parker BA Morey BL Use of the Fitbit to measure adherence to a physical activity intervention among overweight or obese, postmenopausal women: self-monitoring trajectory during 16 weeks JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2015 11 19 3 4 e96 10.2196/mhealth.4229 26586418 v3i4e96 PMC4705008 Frechette L Miller D Rossi A Miller E Van Arsdale A Viswanathan S Nevadunsky N Acceptability and feasibility of wearable fitness technology for endometrial cancer survivors Gynecol Oncol 2018 06 149 223 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.505 Lyons EJ Lewis ZH Mayrsohn BG Rowland JL Behavior change techniques implemented in electronic lifestyle activity monitors: a systematic content analysis J Med Internet Res 2014 08 15 16 8 e192 10.2196/jmir.3469 25131661 v16i8e192 PMC4147713 Chia GL Anderson A McLean LA Behavior change techniques incorporated in fitness trackers: content analysis JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 07 23 7 7 e12768 10.2196/12768 31339101 v7i7e12768 PMC6683653 Pumpera MA Mendozaa JA Arseniev-Koehlera A Holma M Waitea A Morenoa MA Using a Facebook group as an adjunct to a pilot ealth physical activity intervention: a mixed methods approach Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine 2015 San Diego, California Interactive Media Institute 97 101 Goodyear VA Kerner C Quennerstedt M Young people’s uses of wearable healthy lifestyle technologies; surveillance, self-surveillance and resistance Sport Educ Soc 2017 09 22 24 3 212 25 10.1080/13573322.2017.1375907 Kononova A Li L Kamp K Bowen M Rikard R Cotten S Peng W The use of wearable activity trackers among older adults: focus group study of tracker perceptions, motivators, and barriers in the maintenance stage of behavior change JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 04 05 7 4 e9832 10.2196/mhealth.9832 30950807 v7i4e9832 PMC6473213 Ledger D McCaffrey D Inside wearables: how the science of human behavior change offers the secret to long-term engagement Endeavour Partners 2014 2021-05-07 https://archives.yegii.com/asset/inside-wearableshow-science-human-behavior-change-offers-secret-long-term-engagement-1513 Ridgers ND Timperio A Brown H Ball K Macfarlane S Lai SK Richards K Mackintosh KA McNarry MA Foster M Salmon J Wearable activity tracker use among Australian adolescents: usability and acceptability study JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 04 11 6 4 e86 10.2196/mhealth.9199 29643054 v6i4e86 PMC5917084 Finkelstein EA Haaland BA Bilger M Sahasranaman A Sloan RA Nang EE Evenson KR Effectiveness of activity trackers with and without incentives to increase physical activity (TRIPPA): a randomised controlled trial Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016 12 4 12 983 95 10.1016/s2213-8587(16)30284-4 Polgreen LA Anthony C Carr L Simmering JE Evans NJ Foster ED Segre AM Cremer JF Polgreen PM The effect of automated text messaging and goal setting on pedometer adherence and physical activity in patients with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial PLoS One 2018 5 2 13 5 e0195797 10.1371/journal.pone.0195797 29718931 PONE-D-17-27245 PMC5931450 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 2018 07 08 52 13 844 50 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096990 28483930 bjsports-2016-096990 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 09 07 18 9 e239 10.2196/jmir.5531 27604226 v18i9e239 PMC5031913 Ringeval M Wagner G Denford J Paré G Kitsiou S Fitbit-based interventions for healthy lifestyle outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis J Med Internet Res 2020 10 12 22 10 e23954 10.2196/23954 33044175 v22i10e23954 PMC7589007 McClung HL Ptomey LT Shook RP Aggarwal A Gorczyca AM Sazonov ES Becofsky K Weiss R Das SK Dietary intake and physical activity assessment: current tools, techniques, and technologies for use in adult populations Am J Prev Med 2018 10 55 4 93 104 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.06.011 30241622 S0749-3797(18)32017-8 Balbim G Marques I Marquez D Patel D Sharp L Kitsiou S Nyenhuis SM Using Fitbit as an mHealth intervention tool to promote physical activity: potential challenges and solutions JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021 03 01 9 3 e25289 10.2196/25289 33646135 v9i3e25289 PMC7961407 Ainsworth BE Keller C Herrmann S Belyea M Records K Nagle-Williams A Vega-López S Permana P Coonrod DV Physical activity and sedentary behaviors in postpartum Latinas: Madres para la Salud Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013 07 45 7 1298 306 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182863de5 23439416 PMC3686889 Owen N Healy G Matthews C Dunstan D Too much sitting: the population health science of sedentary behavior Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2010 07 38 3 105 13 10.1097/JES.0b013e3181e373a2 20577058 00003677-201007000-00003 PMC3404815 Hamilton MT Healy GN Dunstan DW Zderic TW Owen N Too little exercise and too much sitting: inactivity physiology and the need for new recommendations on sedentary behavior Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 2008 07 17 2 4 292 8 10.1007/s12170-008-0054-8 22905272 PMC3419586 Silfee VJ Haughton CF Jake-Schoffman DE Lopez-Cepero A May CN Sreedhara M Rosal MC Lemon SC Objective measurement of physical activity outcomes in lifestyle interventions among adults: a systematic review Prev Med Rep 2018 09 11 74 80 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.05.003 29984142 S2211-3355(18)30083-4 PMC6030233 Zarin DA Tse T Williams RJ Rajakannan T Update on trial registration 11 years after the ICMJE Policy was established N Engl J Med 2017 01 26 376 4 383 91 10.1056/nejmsr1601330