Integrating wearable technology into population health monitoring systems for physical activity measurement: Meeting report

World Health Organization

Authors

World Health Organization

Keywords:

physical activity, wearable technology, WHO, public health, physical activity surveillance

Abstract

Physical inactivity remains a major global public health concern, with important implications for noncommunicable disease prevention and health system planning, highlighting the need for more accurate and comparable population-level data. This meeting report summarizes the discussions and outcomes of an expert consultation convened by WHO as part of an ongoing series of technical meetings to support the development of guidance on integrating wearable technologies into national population health monitoring systems for measuring physical activity and sedentary behaviour.

The report presents country experiences from diverse national surveillance systems, outlining approaches to the use of wearable devices alongside self-report instruments and highlighting operational, methodological and logistical challenges. It reviews key technical considerations, including device selection, wear location, wear-time protocols and data-processing algorithms, and examines emerging evidence on the measurement of specific behaviours such as cycling. The document also addresses issues related to participation, representativeness, cost, data management and standardization, and explores opportunities to integrate wearable technologies into WHO’s STEPwise approach to surveillance and broader monitoring frameworks aligned with global physical activity targets. Recommendations focus on advancing global guidance, strengthening research and development, supporting pilot studies and building national capacity. Intended for policymakers, researchers and public health practitioners, it supports WHO’s standard-setting role and informs harmonized approaches to improve the quality, comparability and use of physical activity surveillance data.

References

1. Global action plan on physical activity 2018-2030: More active people for a healthier world.Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272722)

2. Physical activity measurement and surveillance in adults: Report of a scoping and planningmeeting, 27-28 november 2023. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024 (https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/378157)

3. Physical activity measurement and surveillance in youth: Report of a scoping and planningmeeting, 8-10 May 2024. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024 (https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/379652)

4. Measuring physical activity in adults using wearable technologies: Report of a scientific meeting,10-12 June 2025, Montreal, Canada. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025 (https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/383363)

5. Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. Geneva: World Health Organization ; 2021 (https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/344249)

6. Rowlands AV, Mirkes EM, Yates T, Clemes S, Davies M, Khunti K et al. Accelerometer-assessedphysical activity in epidemiology: are monitors equivalent? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(2):257–65 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28976493).

7. Migueles JH, Molina-Garcia P, Torres-Lopez LV, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Rowlands AV, Ebner-PriemerUW et al. Equivalency of four research-grade movement sensors to assess movement behaviorsand its implications for population surveillance. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):5525 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35365696).

8. Brocklebank L, Steptoe A, Zhao Y, Bloomberg M, Acquah A, Yuan H et al. Comparing twowrist-worn accelerometers (Axivity AX3 and Matrix 003) for measuring movement behavioursin British and Chinese older adults. J Meas Phys Behav. 2025;8(1) (https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2025-0011).

9. Crowley P, Skotte J, Stamatakis E, Hamer M, Aadahl M, Stevens ML et al. Comparison of physicalbehavior estimates from three different thigh-worn accelerometers brands: a proof-of-conceptfor the prospective physical activity, sitting, and sleep consortium (PROPASS). Int J Behav NutrPhys Act. 2019;16(1):65 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31419998).

10. Buchan DS. Equivalence of activity outcomes derived from three research grade accelerometersworn simultaneously on each wrist. J Sports Sci. 2022;40(7):797–807 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34962185).

11. Liu F, Wanigatunga AA, Schrack JA. Assessment of physical activity in adults using wristaccelerometers. Epidemiol Rev. 2022;43(1):65–93 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34215874).

12. Troiano RP, McClain JJ, Brychta RJ, Chen KY. Evolution of accelerometer methods for physical activityresearch. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(13):1019–23 (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/13/1019).

13. Giurgiu M, von Haaren-Mack B, Fiedler J, Woll S, Burchartz A, Kolb S et. al. The wearablelandscape: issues pertaining to the validation of the measurement of 24-hour physical activity,sedentary, and sleep behavior assessment. J Sport Health Sci. 2024 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39491744/).

14. Matthews CE, Saint-Maurice P, Freeman JR, Hayes HA, Shreves AH, Doherty A et al. Performanceevaluation of algorithms to estimate daily sedentary time using wrist-worn sensors in freeliving adults. J Meas Phys Behav. 2025;8(1) (https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2024-0051).

15. Suorsa K, Pulakka A, Leskinen T, Pentti J, Holtermann A, Heinonen OJ et al. Comparison ofsedentary time between thigh-worn and wrist-worn accelerometers. J Meas Phys Behav.2020;3(3):234–43 (https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2019-0052).

16. Marcotte RT, Petrucci GJ, Jr., Cox MF, Freedson PS, Staudenmayer JW, Sirard JR. Estimatingsedentary time from a hip- and wrist-worn accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52(1):225–32 (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9624389/).

17. Montoye AHK, Moore RW, Bowles HR, Korycinski R, Pfeiffer KA. Reporting accelerometermethods in physical activity intervention studies: A systematic review and recommendations forauthors. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(23):1507–16 (https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095947).

18. Kamada M, Shiroma EJ, Harris TB, Lee IM. Comparison of physical activity assessed using hipand wrist-worn accelerometers. Gait Posture. 2016;44:23–8 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636215009418).

19. Gall N, Sun R, Smuck M. A comparison of wrist- versus hip-worn actigraph sensors for assessingphysical activity in adults: A systematic review. J Meas Phys Behav. 2022;5(4):252–62 (https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2021-0045).

20. Tudor-Locke C, Barreira TV, Schuna JM, Jr. Comparison of step outputs for waist and wristaccelerometer attachment sites. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(4):839–42 (https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000000476).

21. Maylor BD, Edwardson CL, Clarke-Cornwell AM, Davies MJ, Dawkins NP, Dunstan DW et al. Physicalactivity assessed by wrist and thigh worn accelerometry and associations with cardiometabolichealth. Sensors (Basel). 2023;23(17) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37687813).

22. Ahmadi MN, Koemel N, Biswas R, Holtermann A, Koster A, Atkin AJ, et al. Development andevaluation of wrist- and thigh-worn accelerometer algorithms using self-training machinelearning models for classification of activity type and posture: Towards device placementagnostic methods in the PROPASS consortium. preprint. 2025.

23. Koffman L, Muschelli J. Evaluating step counting algorithms on subsecond wrist-wornaccelerometry: A comparison using publicly available data sets. J Meas Phys Behav. 2024;7(1)(https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2024-0008).

24. Walmsley R, Chan S, Smith-Byrne K, Ramakrishnan R, Woodward M, Rahimi K et al. Reallocationof time between device-measured movement behaviours and risk of incident cardiovasculardisease. Br J Sports Med. 2021;56(18):1008–17 (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/56/18/1008.full.pdf).

25. Ramakrishnan R, Doherty A, Smith-Byrne K, Rahimi K, Bennett D, Woodward M et al.Accelerometer measured physical activity and the incidence of cardiovascular disease: Evidencefrom the UK biobank cohort study. PLoS Med. 2021;18(1):e1003487 (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7802951/).

26. Chen Y, Chan S, Bennett D, Chen X, Wu XY, Ke Y et al. Device-measured movement behavioursin over 20,000 China Kadoorie Biobank participants. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023;20(1):138(https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01537-8).Integrating wearable technology into population health monitoring systems for physical activity measurement: report of an expert meeting

27. Wolff-Hughes DL, McClain JJ, Dodd KW, Berrigan D, Troiano RP. Number of accelerometermonitoring days needed for stable group-level estimates of activity. Physiol Meas.2016;37(9):1447–55 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27510765/).

28. Doherty A, Jackson D, Hammerla N, Plötz T, Olivier P, Granat MH et al. Large scale populationassessment of physical activity using wrist worn accelerometers: The UK Biobank Study. PLoSOne. 2017;12(2):e0169649 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169649).

29. Cycling facts 2023. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (KiM); 2023(https://english.kimnet.nl/documents/2024/01/10/cycling-facts-2023).

30. Buehler R, Goel R. Chapter seven – a global overview of cycling trends. In: Heinen E, Götschi T,editors. Advances in transport policy and planning. 10: Academic Press; 2022. p. 137–58 (https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.atpp.2022.04.007).

31. Exercise guidelines [website]. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment;2024 (https://www.Sportenbewegenincijfers.Nl/kernindicatoren/beweegrichtlijnen).

32. Keadle SK, Lyden KA, Strath SJ, Staudenmayer JW, Freedson PS. A framework to evaluate devicesthat assess physical behavior. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2019;47(4):206–14 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31524786).

33. Kahn K, Collinson MA, Gómez-Olivé FX, Mokoena O, Twine R, Mee P et al. Profile: Agincourt healthand socio-demographic surveillance system. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(4):988–1001 (https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys115).

34. Mhatre SS, Bragg F, Panse N, Judge PK, Manjrekar A, Burrett JA et al. Cohort profile: Indian studyof healthy ageing (isha-barshi). Int J Epidemiol. 2024;53(4):dyae079 (https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyae079).