Ownership and Use of Commercial Physical Activity Trackers Among Finnish Adolescents: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile phone apps for monitoring and promoting physical activity (PA) are extremely popular among adults. Devices, such as heart rate monitors or sports watches (HRMs/SWs) that work with these apps are at sufficiently low costs to be available through the commercial markets. Studies have reported an increase in PA levels among adults with devices; however, it is unknown whether the phenomena are similar during early adolescence. At a time when adolescents start to develop their own sense of independence and build friendship, the ease of smartphone availability in developed countries needs to be investigated in important health promoting behaviors such as PA. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the ownership and usage of PA trackers (apps and HRM/SW) among adolescents in a national representative sample and to examine the association between use of devices and PA levels. METHODS: The Finnish school-aged physical activity (SPA) study consisted of 4575 adolescents, aged 11-, 13-, and 15-years, who took part in a web-based questionnaire during school time about PA behaviors between April and May 2016. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to test the associations between moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and devices, after controlling for gender, age, disability, and family affluence. RESULTS: PA tracking devices have been categorized into two types, which are accessible to adolescents: (1) apps and (2) HRM/SW. Half the adolescents (2351/4467; 52.63%) own apps for monitoring PA, yet 16.12% (720/4467) report using apps. Fewer adolescents (782/4413; 17.72%) own HRM/SW and 9.25% (408/4413) use HRM/SW. In this study, users of HRM/SW were 2.09 times (95% CI 1.64-2.67), whereas users of apps were 1.4 times (95% CI 1.15-1.74) more likely to meet PA recommendations of daily MVPA for at least 60 min compared with adolescents without HRM/SW or without apps. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study that describes the situation in Finland with adolescents using PA trackers and its association with PA levels. Implications of the use of apps and HRM/SW by adolescents are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".