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

World Health Organization

Autores

World Health Organization

Palavras-chave:

atividade física, tecnologia wearable, WHO, saúde pública, controle de atividade física

Resumo

A inatividade física continua sendo uma grande preocupação global de saúde pública, com implicações importantes para a prevenção de doenças não transmissíveis e o planejamento de sistemas de saúde, evidenciando a necessidade de dados populacionais mais precisos e comparáveis. Este relatório resume as discussões e os resultados de uma consulta a especialistas convocada pela OMS, como parte de uma série contínua de reuniões técnicas destinadas a apoiar o desenvolvimento de diretrizes sobre a integração de tecnologias vestíveis (*wearables*) aos sistemas nacionais de monitoramento da saúde populacional para a mensuração da atividade física e do comportamento sedentário.

O relatório apresenta experiências de diversos sistemas nacionais de vigilância, descrevendo abordagens para o uso de dispositivos vestíveis em conjunto com instrumentos de autorrelato e destacando desafios operacionais, metodológicos e logísticos. O documento analisa considerações técnicas fundamentais — incluindo a seleção do dispositivo, o local de uso no corpo, os protocolos de tempo de uso e os algoritmos de processamento de dados — e examina evidências emergentes sobre a mensuração de comportamentos específicos, como o ciclismo. Também aborda questões relacionadas à participação, representatividade, custos, gestão e padronização de dados, além de explorar oportunidades para integrar tecnologias vestíveis à abordagem STEPwise da OMS para vigilância e a estruturas de monitoramento mais amplas, alinhadas às metas globais de atividade física. As recomendações concentram-se no avanço das diretrizes globais, no fortalecimento da pesquisa e desenvolvimento, no apoio a estudos-piloto e na capacitação nacional. Destinado a formuladores de políticas, pesquisadores e profissionais de saúde pública, o relatório apoia o papel da OMS no estabelecimento de normas e subsidia abordagens harmonizadas para melhorar a qualidade, a comparabilidade e o uso de dados de vigilância da atividade física.

Referências

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).