Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Oct 24;6(10):e11181.
doi: 10.2196/11181.

Acceptability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Free-Living Healthy Individuals: Implications for the Use of Wearable Biosensors in Diet and Physical Activity Research

Yue Liao  1 , Susan Schembre  1   2
Affiliations

Acceptability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Free-Living Healthy Individuals: Implications for the Use of Wearable Biosensors in Diet and Physical Activity Research

Yue Liao et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Background: Wearable sensors have been increasingly used in behavioral research for real-time assessment and intervention purposes. The rapid advancement of biomedical technology typically used in clinical settings has made wearable sensors more accessible to a wider population. Yet the acceptability of this technology for nonclinical purposes has not been examined.

Objective: The aim was to assess the acceptability of wearing a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) device among a sample of nondiabetic individuals, and to compare the acceptability of a CGM between a mobile diet tracking app (MyFitnessPal) and an accelerometer.

Methods: A total of 30 nondiabetic adults went through a 7-day observational study. They wore a CGM sensor, tracked their diet and physical activity using the CGM receiver and MyFitnessPal, and wore an accelerometer on their waist. After the monitoring period, they completed a 10-item survey regarding acceptability of each of the study tools. Two-tailed paired-sample t tests were conducted to examine whether the summary acceptability scores were comparable between the CGM sensor/receiver and MyFitnessPal/accelerometer.

Results: More than 90% of the study participants agreed that the CGM sensor and receiver were easy to use (28/30 and 27/30, respectively), useful (28/30 and 29/30, respectively), and provided relevant information that was of interest to them (27/30 and 28/30, respectively). The summary acceptability scores (out of a 5-point Likert scale) were mean 4.06 (SD 0.55) for the CGM sensor, mean 4.05 (SD 0.58) for the CGM receiver, mean 4.10 (SD 0.68) for MyFitnessPal, and mean 3.73 (SD 0.76) for the accelerometer.

Conclusions: The high acceptability of using a CGM from this study suggests a great potential for using CGMs in nondiabetic adults in research settings. Although potential selection bias might contribute to the high acceptability in this study, the continued advancements in wearable sensor technology will make the barriers to tracking and collecting personal physiological data more and more minimal.

Keywords: accelerometry; physiological monitoring; remote monitoring; user experience; wearable sensors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Dexcom G4 Platinum continuous glucose monitoring system.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Byrne DW, Rolando LA, Aliyu MH, McGown PW, Connor LR, Awalt BM, Holmes MC, Wang L, Yarbrough MI. Modifiable healthy lifestyle behaviors: 10-year health outcomes from a health promotion program. Am J Prev Med. 2016 Dec;51(6):1027–1037. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.09.012.S0749-3797(16)30444-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 2015. http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
    1. Ladabaum U, Mannalithara A, Myer PA, Singh G. Obesity, abdominal obesity, physical activity, and caloric intake in US adults: 1988 to 2010. Am J Med. 2014 Aug;127(8):717–727.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.02.026. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/24631411 S0002-9343(14)00191-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. An R, Xiang X, Yang Y, Yan H. Mapping the prevalence of physical inactivity in US states, 1984-2015. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168175. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168175 PONE-D-16-35657 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Müller AM, Maher CA, Vandelanotte C, Hingle M, Middelweerd A, Lopez ML, DeSmet A, Short CE, Nathan N, Hutchesson MJ, Poppe L, Woods CB, Williams SL, Wark PA. Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and diet-related eHealth and mHealth research: bibliometric analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 18;20(4):e122. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8954.v20i4e122 - DOI - PMC - PubMed