The current use and understanding of Physical activity is based on generic guidelines, which are slightly ambiguous. This lack of personalisation has made them difficult to interpret for the necessary behaviour change, in the context of individual disease risk or management.
The emergence of wearable technology has introduced an element of personalisation and measurement for Physical Activity, however this is still insufficient to be appropriate for healthcare. There is, in many cases, a question over accuracy, which is often unpublished, but more importantly the data provided is neither meaningful or valuable in the context of health. The display of abstract numbers quantifying activity, although well designed, provide no insight into to your health or actions necessary to change. This also creates a danger that individuals will form an erroneous opinion of their physical activity, preventing them from harnessing its benefits, due to the focus put on single activity dimensions (Thompson et al., 2015).
Understanding that Physical Activity is a much more heterogeneous behaviour, with various dimensions known to have clear biological and health benefits (Thompson and Batterham, 2013; Metcalfe et al., 2012; Department of Health, 2011a; Department of Health, 2011b; Healy et al., 2011; Tremblay et al., 2010; Lee et al. 2010; Helmerhurst et al., 2009; Burgomaster et al., 2008; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008; Healy et al., 2008; Rakobowchuk et al., 2008; Institute of Medicine, 2005; Brooks et al., 2004; Gibala, 2007; World Health Organisation [WHO], 2000), is key to its effective use as a digital medicine. By using a multidimensional view it provides an accurate evaluation of physical activity, is more educational, and enables the personalisation of activity prescription (Thompson et al., 2015).