Which device is most suitable for measuring heart rate variability in the field? A comparative evaluation of two leading options
Mostra el registre complet Registre parcial de l'ítem
- dc.contributor.author Krummenacher, Maryline
- dc.contributor.author Tarvainen, Mika
- dc.contributor.author Montet, Estelle
- dc.contributor.author Turner, Michelle C.
- dc.contributor.author Guseva Canu, Irina
- dc.date.accessioned 2025-09-19T07:35:46Z
- dc.date.available 2025-09-19T07:35:46Z
- dc.date.issued 2025
- dc.description.abstract Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the Polar H10 and Bittium Faros™ heart rate variability monitors for use in occupational and environmental health research, considering data collection, storage, transfer, resource needs, and limitations. Methods: A literature review, device testing, and expert interviews were conducted to assess device performance and usability. Results: Polar H10 is affordable, records RR intervals for up to 20 hours offline, and requires a smartwatch and app for extended storage. Bittium Faros™ is a certified electrocardiogram monitor that records full waveforms, supports long measurements, and enables automatic data transfer. Both devices can be worn with a chest strap, but placement issues may affect data quality. Patch electrodes improve stability but may cause skin irritation. Conclusions: This assessment highlights key device differences to guide HRV monitor selection for occupational and environmental epidemiological studies.
- dc.description.sponsorship M.K., E.M., M.C.T., and I.G.C. acknowledge funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No 101137149 (INTERCAMBIO; https://intercambio-project.eu/) and funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation under Grant Agreement N° 23.00491. M.C.T. is funded by a Ramón y Cajal fellowship (RYC-2017-01892) from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and co-funded by the European Social Fund. ISGlobal acknowledges support from the grant CEX2023-0001290-S funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, and support from the Generalitat de Catalunya through the CERCA Program.
- dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
- dc.identifier.citation Krummenacher M, Tarvainen M, Montet E, Turner MC, Guseva Canu I. Which device is most suitable for measuring heart rate variability in the field? A comparative evaluation of two leading options. J Occup Environ Med. 2025 Sep 1;67(9):717-22. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000003479
- dc.identifier.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000003479
- dc.identifier.issn 1076-2752
- dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10230/71233
- dc.language.iso eng
- dc.publisher Wolters Kluwer (LWW)
- dc.relation.ispartof J Occup Environ Med. 2025 Sep 1;67(9):717-22
- dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/HE/101137149
- dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/3PE/CEX2023-0001290-S
- dc.rights © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- dc.rights.accessRights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
- dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- dc.subject.keyword Autonomy
- dc.subject.keyword Heart rate variability
- dc.subject.keyword Monitoring
- dc.subject.keyword Safety
- dc.subject.keyword Sensor
- dc.title Which device is most suitable for measuring heart rate variability in the field? A comparative evaluation of two leading options
- dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
- dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion