Consumer Perceptions of Wearable Technology Devices: Retrospective Review and Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals of all ages are becoming more health conscious, and wearable technology devices (eg, Fitbit and Apple Watch) are becoming increasingly popular in encouraging healthy lifestyles. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to explore how consumers use wearable devices. METHODS: A retrospective review was done on the top-rated verified purchase reviews of the Fitbit One posted on Amazon.com between January 2014 and August 2018. Relevant themes were identified by qualitatively analyzing open-ended reviews. RESULTS: On retrieval, there were 9369 reviews with 7706 positive reviews and 1663 critical reviews. The top 100 positive and top 100 critical comments were subsequently analyzed. Four major themes were identified: sleep hygiene ("charts when you actually fall asleep, when you wake up during the night, when you're restless--and gives you a cumulative time of "actual sleep" as well as weekly averages."), motivation ("25 lbs lost after 8 months - best motivator ever!"), accountability ("platform to connect with people you know and set little competitions or group…fun accountability if you set a goal with a friend/family."), and discretion ("able to be clipped to my bra without being seen."). Alternatively, negative reviewers felt that the wearable device's various tracking functions, specifically steps and sleep, were inaccurate. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable technology devices are an affordable, user-friendly application that can support all individuals throughout their everyday lives and potentially be implemented into medical surveillance, noninvasive medical care, and mobile health and wellness monitoring. This study is the first to explore wearable technology device use among consumers, and further studies are needed to examine the limitless possibilities of wearable devices in health care.
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 | 0.040 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".