Cited by 128Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Development of a Mobile Monitoring and Feedback Tool to Stimulate Physical Activity of People With a Chronic Disease in Primary Care: A User-Centered Design

Open access
van der Weegen, Sanne, Verwey, Renée, Spreeuwenberg, Marieke, Tange, Huibert, van der Weijden, Trudy, de Witte, Luc·2013·JMIR mhealth and uhealth

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is an important aspect in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or type-2 diabetes. A monitoring and feedback tool combined with guidance by a primary care provider might be a successful method to enhance the level of physical activity in these patients. As a prerequisite for useful technology, it is important to involve the end-users in the design process from an early stage. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the user requirements for a tool to stimulate physical activity, embedded in primary care practice. The leading principle of this tool is to change behavior by self-monitoring, goal-setting, and feedback. METHODS: The research team collected qualitative data among 15 patients, 16 care professionals, and several experts. A prototype was developed in three stages. In stage 1, the literature was searched to identify end-users and context. In stage 2, the literature, experts and patient representatives were consulted to set up a use case with the general idea of the innovation. In stage 3, individual interviews and focus groups were held to identify the end-user requirements. Based on these requirements a prototype was built by the engineering team. RESULTS: The development process has led to a tool that generally meets the requirements of the end-users. A tri-axial activity sensor, worn on the hip, is connected by Bluetooth to a smartphone. In an app, quantitative feedback is given about the amount of activity and goals reached by means of graphical visualization, and an image shows a sun when the goal is reached. Overviews about activity per half an hour, per day, week, and month are provided. In the menu of the app and on a secured website, patients can enter information in individual sessions or read feedback messages generated by the system. The practice nurse can see the results of all patients on a secure webpage and can then discuss the results and set personalized goals in consultation with the patient. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a user-centered approach brings in valuable details (such as the requirements for feedback in activity minutes per day) to improve the fit between the user, technology, and the organization of care, which is important for the usability and acceptability of the tool. The tool embedded in primary care will be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Overview

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 · 10.2196/mhealth.2526

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The It’s LiFe! user-centered design process. First the end-users and context were defined based on the literature. Second the conceptual idea of the tool was described in a use case, based on input from literature, an experts meeting and patient representatives. In stage 3 the use case was discussed with patients and health care professionals to elicit the user requirements for the tool. During the whole process the research team deliberated with the engineering team, to find out what was technically possible. After a detailed user requirements document was composed the engineering team translated the user requirements in technical solutions.
Figure 1 The It’s LiFe! user-centered design process. First the end-users and context were defined based on the literature. Second the conceptual idea of the tool was described in a use case, based on input from literature, an experts meeting and patient representatives. In stage 3 the use case was discussed with patients and health care professionals to elicit the user requirements for the tool. During the whole process the research team deliberated with the engineering team, to find out what was technically possible. After a detailed user requirements document was composed the engineering team translated the user requirements in technical solutions.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The monitoring and feedback tool that was developed, based on the requirements of the end-users. The tri-axial activity sensor is connected via Bluetooth to the smartphone. The smartphone gives directly visible feedback about the amount of activity in a bar chart, which dynamically fills up. When the goal (indicated by the red line) has been reached, a sun rises. In the app and on a secure webpage, people can see their activity history and answer dialogue sessions and read feedback messages generated by the system. The practice nurse can monitor the results of all patients on the secure web page to discuss during patient visits.
Figure 2 The monitoring and feedback tool that was developed, based on the requirements of the end-users. The tri-axial activity sensor is connected via Bluetooth to the smartphone. The smartphone gives directly visible feedback about the amount of activity in a bar chart, which dynamically fills up. When the goal (indicated by the red line) has been reached, a sun rises. In the app and on a secure webpage, people can see their activity history and answer dialogue sessions and read feedback messages generated by the system. The practice nurse can monitor the results of all patients on the secure web page to discuss during patient visits.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Activity menu on the smartphone app. The blue part of the bars indicates the moderately intense activity in minutes; the yellow part denotes the high-intensity activities. The red line indicates the daily goal.
Figure 3 Activity menu on the smartphone app. The blue part of the bars indicates the moderately intense activity in minutes; the yellow part denotes the high-intensity activities. The red line indicates the daily goal.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 2010, Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health
  2. Ursum, J, 2011, Summary studies: Care for the chronically ill, the organisation of care, self-management, self-reliance and participation
  3. Arsand, E, 2008, Stud Health Technol Inform, 136, 113
  4. Varnfield, M, 2011, Med J Aust, 194, S15
  5. 1999, ISO 13407: Human-centered design processes for interactive systems
  6. 2010, Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems
  7. Klasnja, P, 2009, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2009, 338
  8. JafarinaimiNForlizziJHurstAZimmermanJeditorsBreakaway: an ambient display designed to change human behavior2005CHI Conference on factors in computing systems2-7 April 2005Portland, Oregon, USANew YorkACM
  9. LinJMamykinaLLindtnerSDelajouxGStrubHEncouraging physical activity with an interactive computer game2006The 8th international conference on Ubiquitous Computing17-21 September 2006Orange County, California, USAHeidelbergSpringer-Verlag Berlin

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–128 of 128

Metadata

Authors
van der Weegen, S., Verwey, R., Spreeuwenberg, M., Tange, H., van der Weijden, T., & de Witte, L.
Affiliations
  • Zuyd University of Applied Sciences (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Venue
JMIR mhealth and uhealth
Published
2013-07-02
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
e8
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143825555
Cited by
128
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 2
FWCI
21.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • ZonMw
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Maastricht Universitair Medisch Centrum
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
physical activity promotion, chronic disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes, mobile health apps, self-monitoring, goal setting, feedback, user-centered design, user requirements, primary care, practice nurses, behavior change, wearable sensors, mobile application

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