Wearable Technology and Physical Activity Behavior Change in Adults With Chronic Cardiometabolic Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of wearable device interventions (eg, Fitbit) to improve physical activity (PA) outcomes (eg, steps/day, moderate to vigorous physical activity [MVPA]) in populations diagnosed with cardiometabolic chronic disease. DATA SOURCE: Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, an electronic search of 5 databases (Medline, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed) was conducted. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2018 that used a wearable device for the full intervention in adults (18+) diagnosed with a cardiometabolic chronic disease were included. Excluded trials included studies that used devices at pre-post only, devices that administered medication, and interventions with no prospective control group comparison. DATA EXTRACTION: Thirty-five studies examining 4528 participants met the inclusion criteria. Study quality and RCT risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses to compute PA (eg, steps/day) and selected physical dispersion and summary effects were conducted using the raw unstandardized pooled mean difference (MD). Sensitivity analyses were examined. RESULTS: Statistically significant increases in PA steps/day (MD = 2592 steps/day; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1689-3496) and MVPA min/wk (MD = 36.31 min/wk; 95% CI: 18.33-54.29) were found for the intervention condition. CONCLUSION: Wearable devices positively impact physical health in clinical populations with cardiometabolic diseases. Future research using the most current technologies (eg, Fitbit) will serve to amplify these findings.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".