↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of wearable fitness devices

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
159 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
472 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of wearable fitness devices
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3059-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kanitthika Kaewkannate, Soochan Kim

Abstract

Wearable trackers can help motivate you during workouts and provide information about your daily routine or fitness in combination with your smartphone without requiring potentially disruptive manual calculations or records. This paper summarizes and compares wearable fitness devices, also called "fitness trackers" or "activity trackers." These devices are becoming increasingly popular in personal healthcare, motivating people to exercise more throughout the day without the need for lifestyle changes. The various choices in the market for wearable devices are also increasing, with customers searching for products that best suit their personal needs. Further, using a wearable device or fitness tracker can help people reach a fitness goal or finish line. Generally, companies display advertising for these kinds of products and depict them as beneficial, user friendly, and accurate. However, there are no objective research results to prove the veracity of their words. This research features subjective and objective experimental results, which reveal that some devices perform better than others. The four most popular wristband style wearable devices currently on the market (Withings Pulse, Misfit Shine, Jawbone Up24, and Fitbit Flex) are selected and compared. The accuracy of fitness tracking is one of the key components for fitness tracking, and some devices perform better than others. This research shows subjective and objective experimental results that are used to compare the accuracy of four wearable devices in conjunction with user friendliness and satisfaction of 7 real users. In addition, this research matches the opinions between reviewers on an Internet site and those of subjects when using the device. Withings Pulse is the most friendly and satisfactory from the users' viewpoint. It is the most accurate and repeatable for step and distance tracking, which is the most important measurement of fitness tracking, followed by Fitbit Flex, Jawbone Up24, and Misfit Shine. In contrast, Misfit Shine has the highest score for design and hardware, which is also appreciated by users. From the results of experiments on four wearable devices, it is determined that the most acceptable in terms of price and satisfaction levels is the Withings Pulse, followed by the Fitbit Flex, Jawbone Up24, and Misfit Shine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 472 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 467 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 79 17%
Student > Bachelor 71 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 69 15%
Researcher 44 9%
Other 29 6%
Other 72 15%
Unknown 108 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 50 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 10%
Engineering 46 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 7%
Sports and Recreations 32 7%
Other 138 29%
Unknown 124 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,794,195
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,449
of 17,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,734
of 349,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#62
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.