Acceptability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Free-Living Healthy Individuals: Implications for the Use of Wearable Biosensors in Diet and Physical Activity Research.
AffiliationUniv Arizona, Coll Med Tucson, Dept Family & Community Med
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherJMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
CitationLiao Y, Schembre S Acceptability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Free-Living Healthy Individuals: Implications for the Use of Wearable Biosensors in Diet and Physical Activity Research JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018;6(10):e11181 URL: https://mhealth.jmir.org/2018/10/e11181 DOI: 10.2196/11181 PMID: 30355561 PMCID: 6231900
JournalJMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH
Rights©Yue Liao, Susan Schembre. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Collection InformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
AbstractWearable sensors have been increasingly used in behavioral research for real-time assessment and intervention purposes. The rapid advancement of biomedical technology typically used in clinical settings has made wearable sensors more accessible to a wider population. Yet the acceptability of this technology for nonclinical purposes has not been examined. The aim was to assess the acceptability of wearing a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) device among a sample of nondiabetic individuals, and to compare the acceptability of a CGM between a mobile diet tracking app (MyFitnessPal) and an accelerometer. A total of 30 nondiabetic adults went through a 7-day observational study. They wore a CGM sensor, tracked their diet and physical activity using the CGM receiver and MyFitnessPal, and wore an accelerometer on their waist. After the monitoring period, they completed a 10-item survey regarding acceptability of each of the study tools. Two-tailed paired-sample t tests were conducted to examine whether the summary acceptability scores were comparable between the CGM sensor/receiver and MyFitnessPal/accelerometer. More than 90% of the study participants agreed that the CGM sensor and receiver were easy to use (28/30 and 27/30, respectively), useful (28/30 and 29/30, respectively), and provided relevant information that was of interest to them (27/30 and 28/30, respectively). The summary acceptability scores (out of a 5-point Likert scale) were mean 4.06 (SD 0.55) for the CGM sensor, mean 4.05 (SD 0.58) for the CGM receiver, mean 4.10 (SD 0.68) for MyFitnessPal, and mean 3.73 (SD 0.76) for the accelerometer.
NoteOpen access journal.
VersionFinal published version
SponsorsDuncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment; UT MD Anderson Bionutrition Research Core; Center for Energy Balance in Cancer Prevention and Survivorship; Chandler Cox Foundation; [NSF1654213]; [R21CA215415]; [P30CA016672]