Abstract:Background: Exercise intensity (eg, target heart rate [HR]) is a fundamental component of exercise prescription to elicit health benefits in cancer survivors. Despite the validity of chest-worn monitors, their feasibility in community and unsupervised exercise settings may be challenging. As wearable technology continues to improve, consumer-based wearable sensors may represent an accessible alternative to traditional monitoring, offering additional advantages. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between the Polar H10 chest monitor and Fitbit Inspire HR for HR measurement in breast cancer survivors enrolled in the intervention arm of a randomized, pilot exercise trial. Methods: Participants included breast cancer survivors (N=14; aged 38-72 years) randomized to a 12-week aerobic exercise program. This program consisted of three 60-minute, moderate-intensity walking sessions per week, either in small groups or one-on-one, facilitated by a certified exercise physiologist and held at local community fitness centers. As originally designed, the exercise prescription included 36 supervised sessions at a fitness center. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of supervised sessions varied depending on whether participants enrolled before or after March 2020. During each exercise session, HR (in beats per minute) was concurrently measured via a Polar H10 chest monitor and a wrist-worn Fitbit Inspire HR at 5 stages: pre-exercise rest; midpoint of warm-up; midpoint of exercise session; midpoint of cool-down; and postexercise recovery. The exercise physiologist recorded the participant's HR from each device at the midpoint of each stage. HR agreement between the Polar H10 and Fitbit Inspire HR was assessed using Lin concordance correlation coefficient (rc) with a 95% CI. Lin rc ranges from 0 to 1.00, with 0 indicating no concordance and 1.00 indicating perfect concordance. Relative error rates were calculated to examine differences across exercise session stages. Results: Data were available for 200 supervised sessions across the sample (session per participant: mean 13.33, SD 13.7). By exercise session stage, agreement between the Polar H10 monitor and the Fitbit was highest during pre-exercise seated rest (rc=0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.81) and postexercise seated recovery (rc=0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.92), followed by the midpoint of exercise (rc=0.63, 95% CI 0.55-0.70) and cool-down (rc=0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.74). The agreement was lowest during warm-up (rc=0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.49). Relative error rates ranged from -3.91% to 3.09% and were greatest during warm-up (relative error rate: mean -3.91, SD 11.92%). Conclusions: The Fitbit overestimated HR during peak exercise intensity, posing risks for overexercising, which may not be safe for breast cancer survivors' fitness levels. While the Fitbit Inspire HR may be used to estimate exercise HR, precautions are needed when considering participant safety and data interpretation. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03980626; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03980626?term=NCT03980626&rank=1.

Measuring Heart Rate Accurately in Patients With Parkinson Disease During Intense Exercise: Usability Study of Fitbit Charge 4

Heart Rate Monitoring Among Breast Cancer Survivors: Quantitative Study of Device Agreement in a Community-Based Exercise Program

Variable Accuracy of Wearable Heart Rate Monitors during Aerobic Exercise

COMPARISON OF WEARABLES FOR SELF-MONITORING OF HEART RATE IN CORONARY REHABILITATION PATIENTS.

Measures of sleep and cardiac functioning during sleep using a multi-sensory commercially-available wristband in adolescents

Validating the Fitbit charge 4© wearable activity monitor for use in physical activity interventions

Fitbit's accuracy to measure short bouts of stepping and sedentary behaviour: validation, sensitivity and specificity study

Validation of heart rate measurement of Fitbit Charge 4 and Xiaomi Mi Band 5 (Preprint)

P64: Wearable sensing technology for Parkinson's disease: preliminary results from the DIGI.PARK pilot

Validation of Fitbit-Flex as a measure of free-living physical activity in a community-based phase III cardiac rehabilitation population

Acceptability of digital health technologies in early Parkinson's disease: lessons from WATCH-PD

Comparison of Wearable Activity Tracker with Actigraphy for Sleep Evaluation and Circadian Rest-Activity Rhythm Measurement in Healthy Young Adults

Validation of Fitbit Charge 2 Sleep and Heart Rate Estimates Against Polysomnographic Measures in Shift Workers: Naturalistic Study

Validation of ActiGraph and Fitbit in the assessment of energy expenditure in Huntington's disease

Chronotropic Incompetence During Exercise Testing as a Marker of Autonomic Dysfunction in Individuals with Early Parkinson's Disease

Using Smart Bracelets To Assess Heart Rate Among Students During Physical Education Lessons: Feasibility, Reliability, And Validity Study

Accuracy of smartwatches for the remote assessment of exercise capacity

Wristbands in Home-Based Rehabilitation-Validation of Heart Rate Measurement

Comparison of Different Physical Activity Measures in a Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: A Prospective Study

Accuracy of PurePulse photoplethysmography technology of Fitbit Charge 2 for assessment of heart rate during sleep

Validity of Wrist-Worn Activity Tracker Heart Rate Detection in Fontan Patients During Exercise