Cited by 89Physical Activity and HealthMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Gamifying Accelerometer Use Increases Physical Activity Levels of Sedentary Office Workers

Open access
Gremaud, Allene L., Carr, Lucas J., Simmering, Jacob E., Evans, Nicholas J., Cremer, James F., Segre, Alberto M., Polgreen, Linnea A., Polgreen, Philip M.·2018·Journal of the American Heart Association

Abstract

Background: Sedentary work is hazardous. Over 80% of all US jobs are predominantly sedentary, placing full‐time office workers at increased risk for cardiovascular and metabolic morbidity and mortality. Thus, there is a critical need for effective workplace physical activity interventions. MapTrek is a mobile health platform that gamifies Fitbit use for the purpose of promoting physical activity. The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of MapTrek for increasing daily steps and moderate‐intensity steps over 10 weeks in a sample of sedentary office workers. Methods and Results: Participants included 146 full‐time sedentary office workers aged 21 to 65 who reported sitting at least 75% of their workday. Each participant received a Fitbit Zip to wear daily throughout the intervention. Participants were randomized to either a: (1) Fitbit‐only group or 2) Fitbit + MapTrek group. Physical activity outcomes and intervention compliance were measured with the Fitbit activity monitor. The Fitbit + MapTrek group significantly increased daily steps (+2092 steps per day) and active minutes (+11.2 min/day) compared to the Fitbit‐only arm, but, on average, participants’ steps declined during the study period. Conclusions: MapTrek is an effective approach for increasing physical activity at a clinically meaningful level in sedentary office workers, but as with accelerometer use alone, the effect decreases over time. Clinical Trial Registration: URL : https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 03109535.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/jaha.117.007735

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gremaud, A. L., Carr, L. J., Simmering, J. E., Evans, N. J., Cremer, J. F., Segre, A. M., Polgreen, L. A., & Polgreen, P. M.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Carr, Lucas J.
Venue
Journal of the American Heart Association
Published
2018-07-03
Volume
7
Issue
13
ISSN
2047-9980 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2810178540
Cited by
89
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of the American Heart Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa Research Online (The University of Iowa) (submittedVersion)
  • Iowa Research Online (The University of Iowa) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r21dk108019-02)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K25HL122305)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R21 DK108019)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
gamification, sedentary office workers, workplace physical activity, Fitbit, accelerometer, mobile health, daily step count, moderate physical activity, intervention adherence, sitting time
MeSH terms
Healthy Lifestyle, Fitness Trackers, Sitting Position, Adult, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Job Description, Male, Middle Aged, Occupations, Time Factors, Exercise, Occupational Health, Video Games, Risk Reduction Behavior, Young Adult, Actigraphy, Sedentary Behavior, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review