Technology Adoption, Motivational Aspects, and Privacy Concerns of Wearables in the German Running Community: Field Study

Background Despite the availability of a great variety of consumer-oriented wearable devices, perceived usefulness, user satisfaction, and privacy concerns have not been fully investigated in the field of wearable applications. It is not clear why healthy, active citizens equip themselves with wearable technology for running activities, and what privacy and data sharing features might influence their individual decisions. Objective The primary aim of the study was to shed light on motivational and privacy aspects of wearable technology used by healthy, active citizens. A secondary aim was to reevaluate smart technology adoption within the running community in Germany in 2017 and to compare it with the results of other studies and our own study from 2016. Methods A questionnaire was designed to assess what wearable technology is used by runners of different ages and sex. Data on motivational factors were also collected. The survey was conducted at a regional road race event in May 2017, paperless via a self-implemented app. The demographic parameters of the sample cohort were compared with the event’s official starter list. In addition, the validation included comparison with demographic parameters of the largest German running events in Berlin, Hamburg, and Frankfurt/Main. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate whether age, sex, or course distance were associated with device use. The same method was applied to analyze whether a runner’s age was predictive of privacy concerns, openness to voluntary data sharing, and level of trust in one’s own body for runners not using wearables (ie, technological assistance considered unnecessary in this group). Results A total of 845 questionnaires were collected. Use of technology for activity monitoring during events or training was prevalent (73.0%, 617/845) in this group. Male long-distance runners and runners in younger age groups (30-39 years: odds ratio [OR] 2.357, 95% CI 1.378-4.115; 40-49 years: OR 1.485, 95% CI 0.920-2.403) were more likely to use tracking devices, with ages 16 to 29 years as the reference group (OR 1). Where wearable technology was used, 42.0% (259/617) stated that they were not concerned if data might be shared by a device vendor without their consent. By contrast, 35.0% (216/617) of the participants would not accept this. In the case of voluntary sharing, runners preferred to exchange tracked data with friends (51.7%, 319/617), family members (43.4%, 268/617), or a physician (32.3%, 199/617). A large proportion (68.0%, 155/228) of runners not using technology stated that they preferred to trust what their own body was telling them rather than trust a device or an app (50-59 years: P<.001; 60-69 years: P=.008). Conclusions A total of 136 distinct devices by 23 vendors or manufacturers and 17 running apps were identified. Out of 4, 3 runners (76.8%, 474/617) always trusted in the data tracked by their personal device. Data privacy concerns do, however, exist in the German running community, especially for older age groups (30-39 years: OR 1.041, 95% CI 0.371-0.905; 40-49 years: OR 1.421, 95% CI 0.813-2.506; 50-59 years: OR 2.076, 95% CI 1.813-3.686; 60-69 years: OR 2.394, 95% CI 0.957-6.183).

[1]  K. Volpp,et al.  Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. , 2015, JAMA.

[2]  C. Vandelanotte,et al.  Interest and preferences for using advanced physical activity tracking devices: results of a national cross-sectional survey , 2016, BMJ Open.

[3]  Cindy M. Gray,et al.  Evaluating the Impact of Physical Activity Apps and Wearables: Interdisciplinary Review , 2018, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[4]  Philipp Brauner,et al.  A Step in the Right Direction - Understanding Privacy Concerns and Perceived Sensitivity of Fitness Trackers , 2017, AHFE.

[5]  M. McNarry,et al.  Feasibility and Effectiveness of Using Wearable Activity Trackers in Youth: A Systematic Review , 2016, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[6]  Walter R. Thompson,et al.  WORLDWIDE SURVEY OF FITNESS TRENDS FOR 2018: The CREP Edition , 2017 .

[7]  Stavros Asimakopoulos,et al.  Motivation and User Engagement in Fitness Tracking: Heuristics for Mobile Healthcare Wearables , 2017, Informatics.

[8]  Jaehun Joo,et al.  Consumer adaptation and infusion of wearable devices for healthcare , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[9]  Aarnout Brombacher,et al.  Who uses running apps and sports watches? Determinants and consumer profiles of event runners’ usage of running-related smartphone applications and sports watches , 2017, PloS one.

[10]  Melanie Swan,et al.  Sensor Mania! The Internet of Things, Wearable Computing, Objective Metrics, and the Quantified Self 2.0 , 2012, J. Sens. Actuator Networks.

[11]  L. Piwek,et al.  The Rise of Consumer Health Wearables: Promises and Barriers , 2016, PLoS medicine.

[12]  Dong Wen,et al.  Evaluating the Consistency of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Health Monitoring: A Comparison Under Free-Living Conditions , 2017, Journal of medical Internet research.

[13]  Kanitthika Kaewkannate,et al.  A comparison of wearable fitness devices , 2016, BMC Public Health.

[14]  Jeroen Scheerder,et al.  Who is doing a run with the running boom? The growth and governance of one of Europe's most popular sport activities , 2015 .

[15]  Josip Car,et al.  Unaddressed privacy risks in accredited health and wellness apps: a cross-sectional systematic assessment , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[16]  J. Bruce German,et al.  Wearing, Thinking, and Moving: Testing the Feasibility of Fitness Tracking with Urban Youth , 2016 .

[17]  Lena Mamykina,et al.  No longer wearing: investigating the abandonment of personal health-tracking technologies on craigslist , 2015, UbiComp.

[18]  Monika Pobiruchin,et al.  Accuracy and Adoption of Wearable Technology Used by Active Citizens: A Marathon Event Field Study , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[19]  Thomas Zimmermann,et al.  Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness , 2014, CHI.

[20]  James Tung,et al.  User Acceptance of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Mixed Method Study , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[21]  Yiwen Gao,et al.  International Journal of Medical Informatics , 2016 .

[22]  Walter R. Thompson WORLDWIDE SURVEY OF FITNESS TRENDS FOR 2017 , 2016 .

[23]  Peter Kerkhof,et al.  Determinants for Sustained Use of an Activity Tracker: Observational Study , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[24]  R. Furberg,et al.  Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers , 2015, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[25]  Abeer Alsadoon,et al.  Ethical Implications of User Perceptions of Wearable Devices , 2018, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[26]  Parmit K. Chilana,et al.  Acceptance of Commercially Available Wearable Activity Trackers Among Adults Aged Over 50 and With Chronic Illness: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation , 2016, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[27]  Thea J. M. Kooiman,et al.  Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers , 2015, BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.

[28]  Thomas Hess,et al.  Understanding the Continuous Use of Fitness Trackers: A Thematic Analysis , 2017, PACIS.

[29]  Munkee Choi,et al.  User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value , 2016, Telematics Informatics.