Millions of consumer sport and fitness wearables (CSFWs) are used worldwide, and millions of datapoints are generated by each device. Moreover, these numbers are rapidly growing, and they contain a heterogeneity of devices, data types, and contexts for data collection. Companies and consumers would benefit from guiding standards on device quality and data formats. To address this growing need, we convened a virtual panel of industry and academic stakeholders, and this manuscript summarizes the outcomes of the discussion. Our objectives were to identify (1) key facilitators of and barriers to participation by CSFW manufacturers in guiding standards and (2) stakeholder priorities. The venues were the Yale Center for Biomedical Data Science Digital Health Monthly Seminar Series (62 participants) and the New England Chapter of the American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting (59 participants). In the discussion, stakeholders outlined both facilitators of (e.g., commercial return on investment in device quality, lucrative research partnerships, and transparent and multilevel evaluation of device quality) and barriers (e.g., competitive advantage conflict, lack of flexibility in previously developed devices) to participation in guiding standards. There was general agreement to adopt Keadle et al.’s standard pathway for testing devices (i.e., benchtop, laboratory, field-based, implementation) without consensus on the prioritization of these steps. Overall, there was enthusiasm not to add prescriptive or regulatory steps, but instead create a networking hub that connects companies to consumers and researchers for flexible guidance navigating the heterogeneity, multi-tiered development, dynamicity, and nebulousness of the CSFW field.

全球范围内使用了数百万个消费者运动和健身可穿戴设备 (CSFW)，每个设备都会生成数百万个数据点。此外，这些数字正在快速增长，并且它们包含异构的设备、数据类型和数据收集环境。公司和消费者将受益于设备质量和数据格式的指导标准。为了满足这一日益增长的需求，我们召集了一个由行业和学术利益相关者组成的虚拟小组，本手稿总结了讨论的结果。我们的目标是确定 (1) CSFW 制造商参与指导标准的主要促进因素和障碍，以及 (2) 利益相关者优先事项。举办地点为耶鲁大学生物医学数据科学中心数字健康月度研讨会系列（62人参加）和美国运动医学学院新英格兰分会年会（59人参加）。在讨论中，利益相关者概述了促进因素（例如，设备质量投资的商业回报、利润丰厚的研究合作伙伴关系以及对设备质量的透明和多层次评估）和障碍（例如，竞争优势冲突、先前开发的设备缺乏灵活性）参与指导标准。人们普遍同意采用 Keadle 等人的标准路径来测试设备（即台式、实验室、现场、实施），但没有就这些步骤的优先顺序达成共识。总体而言，人们热衷于不添加规定或监管步骤，而是创建一个网络中心，将公司与消费者和研究人员连接起来，以灵活指导应对 CSFW 领域的异质性、多层次发展、动态性和模糊性。