The Wearing Comfort and Acceptability of Ambulatory Physical Activity Monitoring Devices in Soldiers

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS We investigated the wearing comfort of nine devices for monitoring physical activity in a military context. In general, the questionnaire-based survey revealed that the devices were highly acceptable. For long-term monitoring of physical activity in soldiers (>5 days), slightly more participants (85.2%) found that sensors not located at the chest would be more acceptable compared to the chest-worn devices (66.7%). More specifically, our results suggest that devices placed on or around the upper arm, the hip, or the shoe will be preferred over devices worn around the wrist or on or around the chest in a military context. The placement of physical activity monitoring devices around the chest, in particular, can be expected to lead to discomfort due to incompatibilities with military equipment.
TECHNICAL ABSTRACT Background: Military organizations use body-worn devices for ambulatory monitoring of physical activity in soldiers. However, little is known regarding the wearing comfort and acceptability of ambulatory monitoring devices as used in the military context. Purpose: To investigate the wearing comfort and acceptability of nine body-worn devices for monitoring physical activity in soldiers. Methods: A total of 27 male volunteers wore three randomly assigned devices simultaneously for one day of basic military training. The participants then completed a questionnaire designed to assess comfort and acceptability. Results: Devices worn on or around the chest were associated with lower wearing comfort and acceptability scores (overall scores of 59.7, 70.8, and 80.9 for Hidalgo EQ02, TICKR X, and ActiHeart, respectively). Devices worn around the wrist, Mio FUSE (80.9), GENEActiv (81.3), and fenix 3 (85.3), had mid-range scores. The highest scores were obtained for the devices Blue Thunder, worn on the shoe (85.5), Axiamote PADIS 2.0, worn on the hip and the backpack (88.9), and Everion, worn on the upper arm (90.1). Conclusions: Body-worn devices for monitoring physical activity are well-accepted in soldiers. The differences between the devices were small for several parameters. Nevertheless, devices that are attached to, or around, the chest, were typically perceived as having a slightly more negative impact on the body. Both wrist- and chest-worn devices received some reports of interfering with military equipment or military tasks.