mHealth
Fitbit wear during an activity trial
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Survivors wore Fitbits most days and roughly doubled ActiGraph MVPA over 12 weeks in the intervention arm.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Other — Secondary analysis of the exercise arm of a 12-week physical-activity RCT
- N
- N=42 · 42 of 43 exercise-arm completers (parent RCT randomized 87)
- Population
- Female breast cancer survivors in a physical-activity intervention
- Outcome
- Fitbit wear adherence and ActiGraph MVPA over 12 weeks
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Among 42 survivors, mean wear was 6.2/7 days weekly. Intervention MVPA rose from 93.8 to 195.3 min/week.
Methodology
Exploratory analysis of Fitbit use among women in a 12-week activity intervention, relating wear adherence to ActiGraph MVPA.
Limitations
Small exploratory subsample; describes use patterns rather than proving Fitbit alone causes gains.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Single-arm and exploratory mixed-model papers describe trajectories without a randomised comparator. Among 105 IntelliCare users enrolled at PHQ-9 ≥10 and/or GAD-7 ≥8, paired outcomes improved and 37% reached PHQ-9 <5 and 42% GAD-7 <5 by end of treatment. Among 42 cancer survivors in a Fitbit subsample, mean wear was 6.2 of 7 days weekly and intervention MVPA rose from 93.8 to 195.3 min/week — use patterns, not a Fitbit-only causal test.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
A mixed model with a randomised control (MoodGYM, Kokoro-app, Facebook walking, Glucose Buddy) answers a different question from a mixed model of change inside one arm (IntelliCare field trial, Fitbit wear). Significant PHQ-9/GAD-7 improvement to 37%/42% below 5, or MVPA doubling from 93.8 to 195.3 min/week, can be expectancy, concurrent care, or the surrounding activity trial. Those papers do not licence the same causal sentence as a 2.5-point randomised PHQ-9 gap.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
A mixed model with a randomised control (MoodGYM, Kokoro-app, Facebook walking, Glucose Buddy) answers a different question from a mixed model of change inside one arm (IntelliCare field trial, Fitbit wear). Significant PHQ-9/GAD-7 improvement to 37%/42% below 5, or MVPA doubling from 93.8 to 195.3 min/week, can be expectancy, concurrent care, or the surrounding activity trial. Those papers do not licence the same causal sentence as a 2.5-point randomised PHQ-9 gap.
- Supports · MoodGYM improves population wellbeing
- Supports · Can a CBT phone app help stubborn depression?
- Supports · IntelliCare app suite field trial
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.