Evaluating the Relationship Between Fitbit Sleep Data and Self-Reported Mood, Sleep, and Environmental Contextual Factors in Healthy Adults: Pilot Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders can disrupt a person's sleep, resulting in lower quality of life. Early identification and referral to mental health services are critical for active duty service members returning from forward-deployed missions. Although technologies like wearable computing devices have the potential to help address this problem, research on the role of technologies like Fitbit in mental health services is in its infancy. OBJECTIVE: If Fitbit proves to be an appropriate clinical tool in a military setting, it could provide potential cost savings, improve clinician access to patient data, and create real-time treatment options for the greater active duty service member population. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Fitbit device can be used to identify indicators of mental health disorders by measuring the relationship between Fitbit sleep data, self-reported mood, and environmental contextual factors that may disrupt sleep. METHODS: This observational cohort study was conducted at the Madigan Army Medical Center. The study included 17 healthy adults who wore a Fitbit Flex for 2 weeks and completed a daily self-reported mood and sleep log. Daily Fitbit data were obtained for each participant. Contextual factors were collected with interim and postintervention surveys. This study had 3 specific aims: (1) Determine the correlation between daily Fitbit sleep data and daily self-reported sleep, (2) Determine the correlation between number of waking events and self-reported mood, and (3) Explore the qualitative relationships between Fitbit waking events and self-reported contextual factors for sleep. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the scores for the pre-intevention Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI; mean 5.88 points, SD 3.71 points) and postintervention PSQI (mean 5.33 points, SD 2.83 points). The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test showed that the difference between the pre-intervention PSQI and postintervention PSQI survey data was not statistically significant (Z=0.751, P=.05). The Spearman correlation between Fitbit sleep time and self-reported sleep time was moderate (r=0.643, P=.005). The Spearman correlation between number of waking events and self-reported mood was weak (r=0.354, P=.163). Top contextual factors disrupting sleep were "pain," "noises," and "worries." A subanalysis of participants reporting "worries" found evidence of potential stress resilience and outliers in waking events. CONCLUSIONS: Findings contribute valuable evidence on the strength of the Fitbit Flex device as a proxy that is consistent with self-reported sleep data. Mood data alone do not predict number of waking events. Mood and Fitbit data combined with further screening tools may be able to identify markers of underlying mental health disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".