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

World Health Organization

Autores/as

World Health Organization

Palabras clave:

actividad física, tecnología vestible, OMS, salud pública, monitoreo de la actividad física

Resumen

La inactividad física sigue siendo una preocupación importante para la salud pública mundial, con repercusiones significativas en la prevención de enfermedades no transmisibles y la planificación de los sistemas de salud, lo que pone de relieve la necesidad de contar con datos a nivel poblacional más precisos y comparables. Este informe resume los debates y las conclusiones de una consulta de expertos convocada por la OMS como parte de una serie continua de reuniones técnicas destinadas a apoyar la elaboración de directrices sobre la integración de tecnologías vestibles (wearables) en los sistemas nacionales de vigilancia de la salud de la población para medir la actividad física y el comportamiento sedentario.

El informe presenta experiencias de diversos sistemas nacionales de vigilancia, describe enfoques para el uso de dispositivos vestibles junto con instrumentos de autoinforme y destaca los desafíos operativos, metodológicos y logísticos. Asimismo, examina consideraciones técnicas clave —como la selección del dispositivo, el lugar de colocación, los protocolos de tiempo de uso y los algoritmos de procesamiento de datos— y analiza la evidencia emergente sobre la medición de comportamientos específicos, como el ciclismo. El documento también aborda cuestiones relacionadas con la participación, la representatividad, los costos, la gestión de datos y la estandarización, y explora oportunidades para integrar estas tecnologías en el enfoque STEPwise de la OMS para la vigilancia y en marcos de seguimiento más amplios alineados con las metas mundiales de actividad física. Las recomendaciones se centran en promover directrices mundiales, fortalecer la investigación y el desarrollo, apoyar estudios piloto y fomentar la capacidad nacional. Dirigido a responsables de formular políticas, investigadores y profesionales de la salud pública, el informe respalda la función normativa de la OMS y fundamenta enfoques armonizados para mejorar la calidad, la comparabilidad y el uso de los datos de vigilancia de la actividad física.

Citas

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).