Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 79–93 | Cite as

The Impact of Interventions that Integrate Accelerometers on Physical Activity and Weight Loss: A Systematic Review

  • Adam P. Goode
  • Katherine S. Hall
  • Bryan C. Batch
  • Kim M. Huffman
  • S. Nicole Hastings
  • Kelli D. Allen
  • Ryan J. Shaw
  • Frances A. Kanach
  • Jennifer R. McDuffie
  • Andrzej S. Kosinski
  • John W. WilliamsJr
  • Jennifer M. Gierisch
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Regular physical activity is important for improving and maintaining health, but sedentary behavior is difficult to change. Providing objective, real-time feedback on physical activity with wearable motion-sensing technologies (activity monitors) may be a promising, scalable strategy to increase physical activity or decrease weight.

Purpose

We synthesized the literature on the use of wearable activity monitors for improving physical activity and weight-related outcomes and evaluated moderating factors that may have an impact on effectiveness.

Methods

We searched five databases from January 2000 to January 2015 for peer-reviewed, English-language randomized controlled trials among adults. Random-effects models were used to produce standardized mean differences (SMDs) for physical activity outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for weight outcomes. Heterogeneity was measured with I2.

Results

Fourteen trials (2972 total participants) met eligibility criteria; accelerometers were used in all trials. Twelve trials examined accelerometer interventions for increasing physical activity. A small significant effect was found for increasing physical activity (SMD 0.26; 95 % CI 0.04 to 0.49; I2 = 64.7 %). Intervention duration was the only moderator found to significantly explain high heterogeneity for physical activity. Eleven trials examined the effects of accelerometer interventions on weight. Pooled estimates showed a small significant effect for weight loss (MD −1.65 kg; 95 % CI −3.03 to −0.28; I2= 81 %), and no moderators were significant.

Conclusions

Accelerometers demonstrated small positive effects on physical activity and weight loss. The small sample sizes with moderate to high heterogeneity in the current studies limit the conclusions that may be drawn. Future studies should focus on how best to integrate accelerometers with other strategies to increase physical activity and weight loss.

Keywords

Accelerometers Weight loss Physical activity 

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996. www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/contents.htm. Accessed June 23, 2015.
  2. 2.
    Burke LE, Wang J, Sevick MA. Self-monitoring in weight loss: A systematic review of the literature. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011; 111: 92-102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tudor-Locke C, Lutes L. Why do pedometers work? A reflection upon the factors related to successfully increasing physical activity. Sports Med. 2009; 39: 981-993.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bravata DM, Smith-Spangler C, Sundaram V, et al. Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: A systematic review. JAMA. 2007; 298: 2296-2304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Richardson CR, Newton TL, Abraham JJ, Sen A, Jimbo M, Swartz AM. A meta-analysis of pedometer-based walking interventions and weight loss. Ann Fam Med. 2008; 6: 69-77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bassett DR Jr, Dinesh J. Use of pedometers and accelerometers in clinical populations: Validity and reliability issues. Phys Ther Rev. 2010; 15: 135-142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tudor-Locke C. Taking steps toward increasing physical activity: Using pedometers to measure and motivate. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest, Series 3, No. 17; June 2002. www.presidentschallenge.org/informed/digest/docs/200206digest.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2015.
  8. 8.
    Swift DL, Dover SE, Nevels TR, et al. The intervention composed of aerobic training and non-exercise physical activity (I-CAN) study: Rationale, design and methods. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015; 45: 435-442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Le Masurier GC, Tudor-Locke C. Comparison of pedometer and accelerometer accuracy under controlled conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35: 867-871.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tyo BM, Fitzhugh EC, Bassett DR Jr, John D, Feito Y, Thompson DL. Effects of body mass index and step rate on pedometer error in a free-living environment. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 43: 350-356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gonzalez C, Herrero P, Cubero JM, et al. PREDIRCAM eHealth platform for individualized telemedical assistance for lifestyle modification in the treatment of obesity, diabetes, and cardiometabolic risk prevention: A pilot study (PREDIRCAM 1). J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013; 7: 888-897.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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; 16, e192.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40: 181-188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 264-269. W264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed July 22, 2014.
  16. 16.
    Baker PR, Francis DP, Soares J, Weightman AL, Foster C. Community wide interventions for increasing physical activity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 1, Cd008366.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mansi S, Milosavljevic S, Baxter GD, Tumilty S, Hendrick P. A systematic review of studies using pedometers as an intervention for musculoskeletal diseases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014; 15: 231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mays RJ, Rogers RK, Hiatt WR, Regensteiner JG. Community walking programs for treatment of peripheral artery disease. J Vasc Surg. 2013; 58: 1678-1687.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vaes AW, Cheung A, Atakhorrami M, et al. Effect of ‘activity monitor-based’ counseling on physical activity and health-related outcomes in patients with chronic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med. 2013; 45: 397-412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Dyck D, De Meester F, et al. Built environment, physical activity, and obesity. Int J Obes (Lond). 2011; 35: S149.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bort-Roig J, Gilson N, Puig-Ribera A, Contreras R, Trost S. Measuring and influencing physical activity with smartphone technology: A systematic review. Sports Med. 2014; 44: 671-686.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bellet RN, Adams L, Morris NR. The 6-minute walk test in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation: Validity, reliability and responsiveness—A systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2012; 98: 277-287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed June 23, 2015.
  24. 24.
    Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, Localio R, et al. Random-effects meta-analysis of inconsistent effects: A time for change. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160: 267-270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010; 36: 1-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luley C, Blaik A, Gotz A, et al. Weight loss by telemonitoring of nutrition and physical activity in patients with metabolic syndrome for 1 year. J Am Coll Nutr. 2014; 33: 363-374.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shuger SL, Barry VW, Sui X, et al. Electronic feedback in a diet- and physical activity-based lifestyle intervention for weight loss: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011; 8: 41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Polzien KM, Jakicic JM, Tate DF, Otto AD. The efficacy of a technology-based system in a short-term behavioral weight loss intervention. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007; 15: 825-830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tabak M, Brusse-Keizer M, van der Valk P, Hermens H, Vollenbroek-Hutten M. A telehealth program for self-management of COPD exacerbations and promotion of an active lifestyle: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014; 9: 935-944.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nicklas BJ, Gaukstern JE, Beavers KM, Newman JC, Leng X, Rejeski WJ. Self-monitoring of spontaneous physical activity and sedentary behavior to prevent weight regain in older adults. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014; 22: 1406-1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thompson WG, Koepp GA, Levine JA. Increasing physician activity with treadmill desks. Work. 2014; 48: 47-51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wijsman CA, Westendorp RG, Verhagen EA, et al. Effects of a web-based intervention on physical activity and metabolism in older adults: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15, e233.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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; 58: 314-319.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Greene J, Sacks R, Piniewski B, Kil D, Hahn JS. The impact of an online social network with wireless monitoring devices on physical activity and weight loss. J Prim Care Community Health. 2013; 4: 189-194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shrestha M, Combest T, Fonda SJ, Alfonso A, Guerrero A. Effect of an accelerometer on body weight and fitness in overweight and obese active duty soldiers. Mil Med. 2013; 178: 82-87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reijonsaari K, Vehtari A, Kahilakoski OP, van Mechelen W, Aro T, Taimela S. The effectiveness of physical activity monitoring and distance counseling in an occupational setting—Results from a randomized controlled trial (CoAct). BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 344.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koizumi D, Rogers NL, Rogers ME, Islam MM, Kusunoki M, Takeshima N. Efficacy of an accelerometer-guided physical activity intervention in community-dwelling older women. J Phys Act Health. 2009; 6: 467-474.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Slootmaker SM, Chinapaw MJ, Schuit AJ, Seidell JC, Van Mechelen W. Feasibility and effectiveness of online physical activity advice based on a personal activity monitor: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2009; 11, e27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Paschali AA, Goodrick GK, Kalantzi-Azizi A, Papadatou D, Balasubramanyam A. Accelerometer feedback to promote physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes: A pilot study. Percept Mot Skills. 2005; 100: 61-68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heesch KC, Dinger MK, McClary KR, Rice KR. Experiences of women in a minimal contact pedometer-based intervention: A qualitative study. Women Health. 2005; 41: 97-116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tudor-Locke C, Myers AM, Rodger NW. Formative evaluation of the First Step Program: A practical intervention to increase daily physical activity. Can J Diabetes Care. 2000; 47(1): 23-28.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Marcus BH, Williams DM, Dubbert PM, et al. Physical activity intervention studies: What we know and what we need to know: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Subcommittee on Physical Activity); Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; and the Interdisciplinary Working Group on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research. Circulation. 2006; 114: 2739-2752.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Linke SE, Gallo LC, Norman GJ. Attrition and adherence rates of sustained vs. intermittent exercise interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2011; 42: 197-209.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nielsen Newswire. Are consumers really interested in wearing tech on their sleeves? March 20, 2014. www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/tech-styles-are-consumers-really-interested-in-wearing-tech-on-their-sleeves.html. Accessed July 2, 2015.

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam P. Goode
    • 1
  • Katherine S. Hall
    • 2
  • Bryan C. Batch
    • 1
  • Kim M. Huffman
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Nicole Hastings
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kelli D. Allen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ryan J. Shaw
    • 1
  • Frances A. Kanach
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jennifer R. McDuffie
    • 2
  • Andrzej S. Kosinski
    • 1
  • John W. WilliamsJr
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jennifer M. Gierisch
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Duke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Durham Veterans Affairs Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations