CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Technology Use by Older AdultsUsability and User Interface DesignMobile Health and mHealth Applications

User-centered development and testing of a monitoring system that provides feedback regarding physical functioning to elderly people

Open access
Vermeulen, Joan, Neyens, Jacques, Spreeuwenberg, van Rossum, Erik, Sipers, Habets, Hewson, David, de Witte·2013·Patient Preference and Adherence
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s45897PMC PMC3770345
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

PURPOSE: To involve elderly people during the development of a mobile interface of a monitoring system that provides feedback to them regarding changes in physical functioning and to test the system in a pilot study. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: The iterative user-centered development process consisted of the following phases: (1) selection of user representatives; (2) analysis of users and their context; (3) identification of user requirements; (4) development of the interface; and (5) evaluation of the interface in the lab. Subsequently, the monitoring and feedback system was tested in a pilot study by five patients who were recruited via a geriatric outpatient clinic. Participants used a bathroom scale to monitor weight and balance, and a mobile phone to monitor physical activity on a daily basis for six weeks. Personalized feedback was provided via the interface of the mobile phone. Usability was evaluated on a scale from 1 to 7 using a modified version of the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ); higher scores indicated better usability. Interviews were conducted to gain insight into the experiences of the participants with the system. RESULTS: The developed interface uses colors, emoticons, and written and/or spoken text messages to provide daily feedback regarding (changes in) weight, balance, and physical activity. The participants rated the usability of the monitoring and feedback system with a mean score of 5.2 (standard deviation 0.90) on the modified PSSUQ. The interviews revealed that most participants liked using the system and appreciated that it signaled changes in their physical functioning. However, usability was negatively influenced by a few technical errors. CONCLUSION: Involvement of elderly users during the development process resulted in an interface with good usability. However, the technical functioning of the monitoring system needs to be optimized before it can be used to support elderly people in their self-management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/ppa.s45897

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 43 · Cited by 64

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [1]Jette AM Toward a common language for function, disability, and health Phys Ther 2006 86 5 726 734 16649895
  2. [2]Vermeulen J Neyens JC van Rossum E Spreeuwenberg MD de Witte LP Predicting ADL disability in community-dwelling elderly people using physical frailty indicators: a systematic review BMC Geriatr 2011 11 33 21722355 PMC3142492
  3. [4]Gill TM Allore H Holford TR Guo Z The development of insidious disability in activities of daily living among community-living older persons Am J Med 2004 117 7 484 491 15464705
  4. [5]Balzi D Lauretani F Barchielli A Risk factors for disability in older persons over 3-year follow-up Age Ageing 2010 39 1 92 98 19933449 PMC2800253
  5. [6]Besdine RW Wetle TF Improving health for elderly people: an international health promotion and disease prevention agenda Aging Clin Exp Res 2010 22 3 219 230 20634645
  6. [7]Boulos MN Wheeler S Tavares C Jones R How smartphones are changing the face of mobile and participatory healthcare: an overview, with example from eCAALYX Biomed Eng Online 2011 10 24 21466669 PMC3080339
  7. [9]Gitlin LN Winter L Dennis MP Corcoran M Schinfeld S Hauck WW A randomized trial of a multicomponent home intervention to reduce functional difficulties in older adults J Am Geriatr Soc 2006 54 5 809 816 16696748
  8. [13]Vermeulen J Neyens JCL Spreeuwenberg MD Construct validity of a modified bathroom scale that can measure balance in elderly people J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012 13 7 665 e1–e5 22809553
  9. [14]Duchêne J Hewson DJ Longitudinal evaluation of balance quality using a modified bathroom scale: usability and acceptability J Telemed Telecare 2011 17 8 421 426 21979602
  10. [15]Hewson DJ Li K Frerejean A Hogrel JY Duchene J Domo-Grip: functional evaluation and rehabilitation using grip force Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010 2010 1308 1311 21095925
  11. [16]Hewson DJ Duchêne J Charpillet F The PARAChute project: remote monitoring of posture and gait for fall prevention EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing 2007 1 027421
  12. [18]Kujala S User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges Behav Inf Technol 2003 22 1 1 16
  13. [20]De Vito Dabbs A Myers BA Mc Curry KR User-centered design and interactive health technologies for patients Comput Inform Nurs 2009 27 3 175 183 19411947 PMC2818536
  14. [21]De Rouck S Jacobs A Leys M A methodology for shifting the focus of e-health support design onto user needs: a case in the homecare field Int J Med Inform 2008 77 9 589 601 18248846
  15. [23]Nielsen J Usability Engineering 1st ed Cambridge AP Professional 1993
  16. [24]Nielsen J Mack RL Usability Inspection Methods 1st ed New York John Wiley and Sons 1994
  17. [26]Gregor P Newell AF Zajicek M Designing for Dynamic Diversity: Interfaces for Older People Assets ‘02 Proceedings of the fifth international ACM conference on assistive technologies New York, NY ACM 2002 151 156
  18. [27]Edlin-White R Cobb S D’Cruz M Floyde A Lewthwaite S Riedel J Accessibility for older users through adaptive interfaces: opportunities, challenges and achievements Jacko JA Human-Computer Interaction. Towards Mobile and Intelligent Interaction Environments City Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2011 483 489
  19. [30]Darroch I Goodman J Brewster S Gray P The Effect of Age and Font Size on Reading Text on Handheld Computers INTERACT ‘05 Proceedings of the 2005 IFIP TC13 international conference on Human-Computer Interaction Berlin Springer-Verlag 2005 253 266
  20. [31]Zhou J Rau PLP Salvendy G Use and design of handheld computers for older adults: a review and appraisal Intern J Hum-Comput Int 2012 28 12 799 826
  21. [34]Holzinger A Searle G Nischelwitzer A On some aspects of improving mobile applications for the elderly Stephanidis C Universal access in human computer interaction: coping with diversity Heidelberg Springer 2007 923 932
  22. [35]Ziefe M Information presentation in small screen devices: the trade-off between visual density and menu foresight Appl Ergon 2010 41 6 719 730 20382372
  23. [36]Wade R Cartwright C Shaw K Factors relating to home telehealth acceptance and usage compliance Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2012 5 25 33 22570580 PMC3346201
  24. [37]van den Berg N Schumann M Kraft K Hoffmann W Telemedicine and telecare for older patients – a systematic review Maturitas 2012 73 2 94 114 22809497
  25. [38]Kangas E Kinnunen T Applying user-centered design to mobile application development Communications of the ACM. Designing for the mobile device 2005 48 7 55 59
  26. [41]Weinstein RS Lopez AM Krupinski EA Integrating telemedicine and telehealth: putting it all together Stud Health Technol Inform 2008 131 23 38 18305320

Authors
Vermeulen, J., Neyens, J., Spreeuwenberg, van Rossum, E., Sipers, Habets, Hewson, D., & de Witte
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Zuyderland Medisch Centrum (NL)
  • Université de Technologie de Troyes (FR)
Corresponding author
Vermeulen, Joan
ORCID
Venue
Patient Preference and Adherence
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-08
Volume
7
Issue
7
Pages
843
ISSN
1177-889X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2147/ppa.s45897
PMC
PMC3770345
OpenAlex
W1991294063
Cited by
64
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
14.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Patient Preference and Adherence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Bedfordshire Repository (University of Bedfordshire) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Université de Technologie de Troyes
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
older adults, personalized feedback, mobile phone interface, usability, user-centered design, physical activity monitoring, self-management, bathroom scale, Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review