China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Alzheimer’s and mHealth: Regulatory, Privacy and Ethical Considerations
Published in Christopher M. Hayre, Dave J. Muller, Marcia J. Scherer, Everyday Technologies in Healthcare, 2019
Bonnie Kaplan, Sofia Ranchordás
Assisted living centres and dementia units use Alexa, Amazon Echo’s voice-activated smart home assistant to help seniors access news, connect with others, remind them to take their medicines or dress for the weather, alert others if they fall and take on other duties of caregivers, despite potential privacy violations (Newman 2018). Apple’s Mind Share, smart home assistants Amazon Echo and Google Nest and digital platforms like Neurotrack and Quest Diagnostic’s CogniSense are used to track cognitive performance and measure physiological changes in the hopes of identifying connections between lifestyle, behaviour and medical condition (Leescher 2017, van Wagenen 2018). Researchers and others are using Fitbit or Garmin’s Vivosmart activity tracker to collect data that could lead to identifying disease markers.
Heath Device Security and Privacy
Published in Ahmed Elngar, Ambika Pawar, Prathamesh Churi, Data Protection and Privacy in Healthcare, 2021
A. B. M. Kamrul Islam Riad, Hossain Shahriar, Chi Zhang, Farhat Lamia Barsha
In Figure 6.1, synchronization is formed over Bluetooth between the Fitbit device and a smartphone or personal computer. The Bluetooth Low Energy (BTLE) (Fitbit Help) is used for data synchronization between smartphone applications or personal computers over Internet/Wi-Fi Fitbit cloud service revealed in an encrypted session. Analysing Bluetooth Communication
IoT in M-Health Care
Published in Ambikapathy, R. Shobana, Logavani, Dharmasa, Reinvention of Health Applications with IoT, 2022
Himanshu Singh, Ahmad Faraz, Justice Ohene-Akoto, D.V. Sneha
One of the main things about m-health devices is for it to be compact and comfortable. These small sensors are in constant touch with the body of the patient or client. The size and mobility also make the device attractive. There are several devices available in the market that are small in size, easy-to-wear and have great specifications, some of them are listed below: TICKR is a heart rate monitor by Wahoo Fitness. This device can simply be strapped across the chest to take the heart rate measurements.FitBit Surge is a convenient smartwatch with abilities to get notifications from smartphones. It can track heart rate, sleep patterns, and number of calories burned during a workout. The FitBit Surge supports Bluetooth wireless connectivity and is compatible with iOS and Android operating systems.OPTA SB-092 Fitness Smart Watch is a fitness tracker which has an OLED display through which you can monitor your blood pressure and heart rate. And, this fitness tracker band supports automatic heart rate and BP oxygen monitoring as well. In addition to monitoring your health status, the smartwatch also lets you make calls anytime, anywhere and have quick access to your phone book.Forerunner 920XT: It monitors the heart, a record of calorie calculation, step counter, swimming stroke counter, and tracking elevationiBGSta: It measures the sugar and glucose level in blood, and its compatibility is good with iPhone and iPod [1]
A meta-analysis of Fitbit devices: same company, different models, different validity evidence
Published in Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 2022
Willie Leung, Layne Case, Ming-Chih Sung, Jaehun Jung
There are several different brands of consumer-oriented wearable devices, including Fitbit (Fitbit Inc., San Francisco, CA), Garmin (Garmin Ltd., Olathe, KS) and Jawbone (Jawbone Inc., San Francisco, CA). Among the various brands, Fitbit Inc. is one of the leading companies in developing and selling consumer-oriented wearable devices [9]. In 2019, it was estimated that over 20 million people are actively using the various models of Fitbit devices [10]. Fitbit devices use a microelectronic triaxial accelerometer to measure body motion and movement in the three planes of movements (i.e., vertical, anteroposterior and mediolateral). Resultantly, using proprietary algorithms, Fitbit devices track multiple physical activity metrics including steps, time spent in different intensities of physical activity, distance travelled, heart rate and energy expenditure each day. However, the information provided by these devices may vary due to differences in brand, model function, individual preferences and activity levels.
Assessment of step accuracy using the Consumer Technology Association standard
Published in Journal of Sports Sciences, 2019
Jennifer A. Bunn, Caleb Jones, Alexis Oliviera, Michael J. Webster
The Fitibt, Apple, Garmin, and Polar are the most extensively researched of the devices utilized in the present study (Chen et al., 2016; Fokkema et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2015; Sears et al., 2017; Wen et al., 2017). While Fitbit has undergone several different versions of activity trackers, the Fitbit hip-worn devices have shown higher step accuracy than the Fitbit wrist-worn devices (An et al., 2017; Case et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2016; Evenson, Goto, & Furberg, 2015; Fokkema et al., 2017; Modave et al., 2017; Sears et al., 2017). Specifically, the Fitbit Surge has been previously shown to significantly undercount steps (Lee et al., 2015), which agrees with the results found in the present study. Garmin wrist-based devices have demonstrated more accurate results than Fitbit wrist-based devices (Chen et al., 2016; Fokkema et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2015; Wen et al., 2017). In agreement with the present study, previous research reports that Garmin devices with (e.g. 735XT, Forerunner series) and without GPS (e.g. Vivosmart and Vivofit) are both accurate to within 5% MAPE (Chen et al., 2016; Fokkema et al., 2017; Giannakidou et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2015; Wen et al., 2017). Apple devices include the first, second, and third series of the Apple iWatch and the Sport Watch. The results of the present study agree with previous research on Apple devices suggesting that these devices typically fall within the MAPE standards and are accurate with increased walking speeds (Chen et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2015; Wen et al., 2017). Previous research on Polar devices has primarily been conducted on the Loop, and this device has not fared well during walking with a MAPE exceeding 10% in several scenarios (Chen et al., 2016; Giannakidou et al., 2012). No peer-reviewed research regarding the step accuracy of the Moto 360, either Suunto Spartan device, or a TomTom device has been reported.