A pilot RCT in university students found that wearing activity trackers for 6 months led to declining daily adherence over time, with no meaningful difference in actual physical activity between those who received motivational interviewing support and controls.
Researchers at a university conducted a secondary analysis of a pilot randomized controlled trial examining whether providing wearable devices to monitor physical activity, combined with motivational interviewing in some participants, would sustain or increase exercise in young adults. The study enrolled university students between 18 and 29 years old and tracked their activity patterns over a 6-month period using wearable devices.
The headline finding was sobering for wearable device advocates: daily adherence to wearing the devices declined steadily in both the intervention group (which received motivational interviewing sessions) and the control group (which did not). This attrition in device usage is a critical real-world limitation often overlooked in discussions about wearable technology. Even with active motivational support designed to enhance engagement, participants simply stopped consistently wearing their devices as time progressed. This pattern mirrors broader findings about behavioral change technologies: initial novelty and interest wane over weeks and months, leaving adherence as a primary barrier to sustained measurement.
When researchers examined the participants who did continue wearing devices, moderate and vigorous physical activity levels were strikingly similar between the two groups. The motivational interviewing intervention, a counseling approach designed to strengthen intrinsic motivation for behavior change, failed to produce measurably different activity outcomes compared to the control condition. This suggests that simply providing wearable devices plus supportive interviews was insufficient to shift actual exercise behavior in this population.
The authors framed this as a feasibility study rather than an efficacy trial, meaning the work was designed to identify practical challenges in implementation rather than prove that wearables can drive activity increases. The findings underscore two distinct problems: getting people to consistently use wearables over time, and whether wearing them actually changes behavior. This secondary analysis suggests both remain unresolved in university-age populations.
If you're considering using a wearable activity tracker, this study suggests several practical realities to keep in mind:
Wearables are not self-sustaining. The novelty of wearing a device and seeing daily step counts or activity minutes appears to fade. The researchers didn't report what percentage of participants were still actively wearing devices by month 6, but the stated decline in adherence indicates meaningful dropout. If you invest in a wearable, plan for engagement to naturally decrease and decide in advance how you'll stay motivated past the initial enthusiasm phase.
Tracking alone doesn't change behavior. The intervention group had access to motivational interviewing, a structured counseling approach, yet showed no activity advantage over controls. This doesn't mean wearables are useless as feedback tools, but it does mean wearing one is not equivalent to increasing exercise. The behavior change driver is your decision to move more, not the device itself. The wearable is a measurement instrument, not a behavioral intervention.
Young adults may be a harder demographic for sustained engagement. University students have competing demands and changing routines. If adherence dropped in this relatively health-conscious population with researcher support, sustained device use in less structured populations might be even lower. Consider your own capacity to integrate device-wearing into your routine consistently.
For practical application: if wearables appeal to you, use them to establish baseline activity levels and identify patterns, but anchor your exercise routine to habits unrelated to the device. Join a resistance-training program, commit to morning-exercise, or establish zone-2-cardio sessions based on enjoyment or scheduled time, not on daily device feedback.
| Attribute | Details |
|---|---|
| Design | Secondary analysis of pilot randomized controlled trial |
| Population | University students, aged 18-29 years |
| Sample size | Not reported in abstract |
| Duration | 6 months |
| Intervention | Wearable activity devices plus motivational interviewing (intervention group) vs. control group |
| Primary outcome | Daily device adherence and moderate-vigorous physical activity levels |
| Key finding | Device adherence declined in both groups; activity levels were similar between groups |
| Journal | JMIR Formative Research |
| Evidence tier | - Pilot RCT with feasibility focus |
Bauer, U. E., et al. "Physical Activity Monitoring Using Wearable Devices in Young Adults: Secondary Analysis of a 6-Month Motivational Interviewing Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial." JMIR Formative Research, 2024. PubMed: 42462275
ProtocolEngine provides general health information based on published research. This is not medical advice. Consult a healthcare professional before starting any supplement or health protocol.