Formative Assessment: Design of a Web-Connected Sedentary Behavior Intervention for Females.

Amber W Kinsey, Matthew Whipple, Lauren Reid, Olivia Affuso
Author Information
  1. Amber W Kinsey: Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States. ORCID
  2. Matthew Whipple: Northrop Grumman Corporation, Atlanta, GA, United States. ORCID
  3. Lauren Reid: Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States. ORCID
  4. Olivia Affuso: Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behavior (SB) is a significant risk factor for heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and early mortality, particularly among women, and the health consequences associated with SB are independent of physical activity status. Interventions utilizing wearable technologies can improve SB, but their effectiveness is influenced by individual preferences, device engagement strategies, and technological features, which may affect user compliance. Gathering a priori insight from target populations on their preferences for program tools and strategies may assist researchers in identifying effective methods to improve the efficacy of SB interventions.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to (1) explore the likeability (likes and dislikes) and usability (engagement intentions and navigation) of a wearable device (Movband) and its accompanying website (dashboard), (2) examine social incentive preferences (teammates), and (3) assess the feasibility (participants' experiences during an activity-monitoring period) of these tools for use in an intervention to reduce SB in girls and women.
METHODS: A total of 9 girls (mean age: 8.9 years, standard deviation [SD] 1.1 years) and 11 college-aged women (mean age: 22.6 years, SD 3.2 years) participated in this study. Separate focus groups were held for girls and women, and all participants attended one before and the other following a 7-day activity-monitoring period. During the focus groups, participants were prompted with questions to address the study aims, and the nominal group technique was used to compile lists of group-specific preferences for the activity-monitoring system. The top three ranking likes and dislikes were reverse coded to determine likeability.
RESULTS: The top-ranking responses for the girls and women were the following: visual display of movements and ease of navigation (dashboard like), boring to look at and no calorie-tracking function (dashboard dislike), backlight and long battery life (Movband like), and color and not waterproof (tied for girls) and vertical time display (Movband dislike). Additionally, participants identified several aesthetic preferences and functional limitations. At the second focus group visit, the majority of the participants self-reported less SB during the previous week. Objective data from the activity-monitoring period revealed that the average steps per day for girls and women were 12,373.4 (SD 2617.6) and 8515.8 (SD 3076.7), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the girls and women liked many features of the Movband and dashboard. However, several dislikes were mentioned, which may negatively influence compliance and the effectiveness of the activity-monitoring system and require improvements before using in an SB intervention.

Keywords

References

  1. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Jan;40(1):181-8 [PMID: 18091006]
  2. Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Apr 1;167(7):875-81 [PMID: 18303006]
  3. J Phys Act Health. 2009 Jan;6(1):1-5 [PMID: 19211952]
  4. J Med Internet Res. 2010 Feb 17;12(1):e4 [PMID: 20164043]
  5. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011 Jul 28;8:78 [PMID: 21798014]
  6. Health Psychol. 2012 Jul;31(4):486-95 [PMID: 22468716]
  7. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2012 Jun;37(3):540-2 [PMID: 22540258]
  8. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2013 Feb;38(2):100-14 [PMID: 23438219]
  9. J Behav Med. 2014 Oct;37(5):819-27 [PMID: 24142187]
  10. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Oct 29;11:183 [PMID: 24168638]
  11. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 20;8(11):e79143 [PMID: 24278117]
  12. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013 Dec 01;10:130 [PMID: 24289113]
  13. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Feb;46(2):122-35 [PMID: 24439345]
  14. Obes Rev. 2014 Mar;15(3):159-68 [PMID: 24588966]
  15. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 11;9(3):e90347 [PMID: 24618584]
  16. Health Educ Res. 2014 Oct;29(5):822-39 [PMID: 24812148]
  17. PLoS One. 2014 Jun 25;9(6):e100821 [PMID: 24964010]
  18. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2014 Jan;8(1):42-68 [PMID: 25045343]
  19. Obes Rev. 2014 Nov;15(11):905-19 [PMID: 25112481]
  20. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Aug 15;16(8):e192 [PMID: 25131661]
  21. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 May;47(5):1079-86 [PMID: 25202848]
  22. Med Sport Sci. 2014;60:11-26 [PMID: 25226797]
  23. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Jan 05;12(1):414-27 [PMID: 25568971]
  24. JAMA. 2015 Feb 3;313(5):459-60 [PMID: 25569175]
  25. BMC Public Health. 2015 Feb 28;15:201 [PMID: 25881120]
  26. BMC Public Health. 2015 Jun 24;15:585 [PMID: 26104189]
  27. J Med Internet Res. 2016 May 04;18(5):e90 [PMID: 27145905]
  28. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 Jun 09;13:65 [PMID: 27276873]
  29. Prev Med Rep. 2016 Aug 08;4:453-8 [PMID: 27617191]
  30. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Nov 23;4(4):e129 [PMID: 27881359]
  31. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Apr 28;5(4):e55 [PMID: 28455278]
  32. Digit Health. 2015 May 05;1:2055207615583564 [PMID: 29942539]

Grants

  1. P30 DK056336/NIDDK NIH HHS
  2. P30 DK079626/NIDDK NIH HHS
  3. T32 DK062710/NIDDK NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0SBwomengirlspreferencesactivity-monitoringMovbanddashboardyearsparticipantsmaystudy1dislikesperiodSDfocusSedentaryhealthwearableimproveeffectivenessdeviceengagementstrategiesfeaturescompliancetoolslikeabilitylikesnavigation23intervention9meanage:86groupsgroupsystemdisplaylikedislikeseveralBACKGROUND:behaviorsignificantriskfactorheartdiseasediabetesobesityearlymortalityparticularlyamongconsequencesassociatedindependentphysicalactivitystatusInterventionsutilizingtechnologiescaninfluencedindividualtechnologicalaffectuserGatheringprioriinsighttargetpopulationsprogramassistresearchersidentifyingeffectivemethodsefficacyinterventionsOBJECTIVE:objectiveexploreusabilityintentionsaccompanyingwebsiteexaminesocialincentiveteammatesassessfeasibilityparticipants'experiencesusereduceMETHODS:totalstandarddeviation[SD]11college-aged22participatedSeparateheldattendedonefollowing7-daypromptedquestionsaddressaimsnominaltechniqueusedcompilelistsgroup-specifictopthreerankingreversecodeddetermineRESULTS:top-rankingresponsesfollowing:visualmovementseaseboringlookcalorie-trackingfunctionbacklightlongbatterylifecolorwaterprooftiedverticaltimeAdditionallyidentifiedaestheticfunctionallimitationssecondvisitmajorityself-reportedlesspreviousweekObjectivedatarevealedaveragestepsperday1237342617851530767respectivelyCONCLUSIONS:resultssuggestlikedmanyHowevermentionednegativelyinfluencerequireimprovementsusingFormativeAssessment:DesignWeb-ConnectedBehaviorInterventionFemalespromotionmotivationqualitativeresearchsedentarylifestyle

Similar Articles

Cited By