Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Activity-tracking devices for older adults: comparison and preferences

  • Long Paper
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research demonstrates that physical activity beneficially influences brain function, quality of life and reduces cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, many projects and technical developments aim to promote physical activity. As a result of the “quantified self”-movement, a great number of wearable technologies, which are mainly developed for a younger target group, emerged on the market. However, there is a lack of scientific studies to establish which systems are suitable for older adults and there is still little known about seniors’ needs and preferences regarding fitness trackers. In this crossover-designed usability study, 20 older adults aged over 60 took part. In the study, all participants were requested to rate the usability of five of the most widely used fitness trackers (Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit Flex, Garmin vivofit, Sony SmartBand) and were asked about their preferences. Participants had to rate its ergonomic features such as handling, material and design. Overall, the fitness trackers differ a lot in tracking features, design, usability and acceptance of the seniors. We present an aggregated list of requirements for the “ideal” activity tracker for older adults. The results seem to be of high interest for developers, but also for scientists to choose appropriate sensors for technology-based interventions that may promote physical activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith, A.: Older adults and technology use. Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project (2014)

  2. Tacken, M., Marcellini, F., Mollenkopf, H., Ruoppila, I., Széman, Z.: Use and acceptance of new technology by older people. Findings of the international MOBILATE survey: enhancing mobility in later life. Gerontechnology 3(3), 128–137 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Czaja, S., Sharit, J.: The aging of the population: opportunities and challenges for human factors engineering. The Bridge 39(1), 34–40 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bolton, M., Independent Age: Older people, technology and community: the potential of technology to help older people renew or develop social contacts and to actively engage in their communities. Independent Age, London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Heumer, W.: Senioren brauchen die etwas andere Technikhilfe. VDI Nachr, 42 (2013). http://www.vdi-nachrichten.com/Management-Karriere/Senioren-Technikhilfe

  6. Czaja, S., Lee, C.C.: Designing computer systems for older adults. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds.) The human–computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications, pp. 413–427. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ledger, D., McCaffrey, D.: Inside wearables—part 2 (2014). http://endeavourpartners.net/assets/Endeavour-Partners-Inside-Wearables-Part-2-July-2014.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2015

  8. TechnologyAdvice: Wearable technology and preventative healthcare. Trends in fitness tracking among US adutls (2014). http://healthblawg.typepad.com/files/ta-study-wearable-technology-preventative-healthcare.pdf

  9. Consumer Reports: Activity monitors cover more than just footsteps (2013). http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/11/best-activity-tracker-reviews/index.htm

  10. Ledger, D., McCaffrey, D.: Inside wearables (2014). http://endeavourpartners.net/assets/Endeavour-Partners-Wearables-and-the-Science-of-Human-Behavior-Change-Part-1-January-20141.pdf. Accessed: 29 May 2015

  11. Vaigneur, H., Altenhoff, B.: Wearable fitness trackers: a comparative usability evaluation (2014). http://humanfactorsblog.org/2014/08/28/wearable-fitness-trackers-a-comparative-usability-evaluation/

  12. Case, M., Burwick, H., Volpp, K., Patel, M.: Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 313(6), 625–626 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pfannenstiel, A., Chaparro, B.: First impressions of fitness-tracking devices: what attributes matter? (2016). http://usabilitynews.org/first-impressions-of-fitness-tracking-devices-what-attributes-matter/. Accessed 01 Dec 2016

  14. Naslund, J.A., Aschbrenner, K.A., Barre, L.K., Bartels, S.J.: Feasibility of popular m-health technologies for activity tracking among individuals with serious mental illness. Telemed. E-Health 21(3), 213–216 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mercer, K., Giangregorio, L., Schneider, E., Chilana, P., Li, M., Grindrod, K.: Acceptance of commercially available wearable activity trackers among adults aged over 50 and with chronic illness: a mixed-methods evaluation. JMIR MHealth UHealth 4(1), e7 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. AARP: Building a better tracker: older consumers weigh in on activity and sleep monitoring devices (2015). http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/home-and-family/personal-technology/2015-07/innovation-50-project-catalyst-tracker-study-AARP.pdf

  17. Fritz, T., Huang, E.M.G., Murphy, C., Zimmermann, T.: Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2014, pp. 487–496

  18. Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24(6), 5774–5940 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M.: Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) HCI and Usability for Education and Work, pp. 63–76. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Consolvo, S., Everitt, K., Smith, I., Landay, J.A.: Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2006, pp. 457–466

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article was produced as part of a project supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under grant number 16SV7100. Responsibility for the contents of this publication lies with the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geriatrics Research Group of the Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Reinickendorfer Straße 61, 13347, Berlin, Germany

    Anika Steinert, Marten Haesner & Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen

Authors
  1. Anika Steinert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marten Haesner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anika Steinert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steinert, A., Haesner, M. & Steinhagen-Thiessen, E. Activity-tracking devices for older adults: comparison and preferences. Univ Access Inf Soc 17, 411–419 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0539-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0539-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation