A Mobile App to Promote Adapted Exercise and Social Networking for People With Physical Disabilities: Usability Study

Byron Lai, Jereme Wilroy, Hui-Ju Young, Jennifer Howell, James H Rimmer, Tapan Mehta, Mohanraj Thirumalai, Byron Lai, Jereme Wilroy, Hui-Ju Young, Jennifer Howell, James H Rimmer, Tapan Mehta, Mohanraj Thirumalai

Abstract

Background: People with physical disabilities (PWD) experience several unique challenges that prevent them from participating in onsite exercise programs. Although mobile apps can provide a ubiquitous channel for delivering convenient exercise services within the community, no exercise apps have been designed for people with disabilities who experience certain functional limitations.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the usability of a mobile exercise app in PWD.

Methods: A sequential explanatory mixed-method design was used to holistically test usability in 4 core areas: effectiveness (ie, ease of use), efficiency (ie, operation speed), perceived satisfaction, and usefulness. Participants completed 7 face-to-face usability tasks and 1 structured interview. Equipment included a computer tablet that came preinstalled with the exercise app. The app included exercise videos that focused on several components of fitness: aerobic capacity, muscular strength, functional strength or balance, and range of motion. The app contained 3 different versions of the exercise program: (1) a program for people with the ability to use the upper and lower limbs, (2) a seated program for people with the ability to use only upper limbs, and (3) a program designed for people with hemiparesis. The app also included educational resources in the form of infographics aimed at addressing key social cognitive theory constructs included social support, outcome expectancies, self-efficacy, and barriers or facilitators to exercising. Participant characteristics and quantitative usability data were descriptively reported. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: A total of 12 PWD tested the usability of the exercise app and completed 96% (69/72) of the usability tasks on the first attempt. Operation speed varied among users, which prompted the development team to make minor revisions to the app. Qualitative results demonstrated 3 overarching themes: facilitates exercise adoption, positive experiences of videos, and easy to learn. Participants noted that the app circumvented several barriers to exercise associated with leaving the home (eg, inclement weather conditions, exacerbations of health conditions or disability symptoms, difficulties with transportation, and social support).

Conclusions: The mobile exercise app provided a simple platform that was effective, useful, and appreciated by PWD. Participants also perceived the app as easy to use and felt it was a valuable tool for assisting PWD to obtain regular exercise. Study findings also offered insight into the participants' preferences for mobile exercise apps that can aid future research and development projects. Future exercise trials are needed to determine the true impact of mobile app technology on lifestyle physical activity in people with disabilities.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03024320; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03024320 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/75hNLgRFH).

Keywords: exercise; mHealth; rehabilitation; telehealth.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: This study involved 2 project teams: a development and research team. A total of 2 authors of this study were part of the development team: MT and JR. Although these authors contributed to the preparation of this submission, a separate research team led by BL implemented the usability testing, analyzed the data, and reported the findings here in this manuscript.

©Byron Lai, Jereme Wilroy, Hui-Ju Young, Jennifer Howell, James H. Rimmer, Tapan Mehta, Mohanraj Thirumalai. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (http://formative.jmir.org), 19.03.2019.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of the 3 different program versions (Left: Version 1; Middle: Version 2; Right: Version 3).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Example of an individual following an exercise routine through a computer tablet mounted to an adjustable stand.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Flow diagram.

References

    1. Brault MW. US Census Bureau. 2012. Jul, [2019-01-22]. Americans with disabilities: 2010 .
    1. Martin Ginis KA, Ma JK, Latimer-Cheung AE, Rimmer JH. A systematic review of review articles addressing factors related to physical activity participation among children and adults with physical disabilities. Health Psychol Rev. 2016 Dec;10(4):478–94. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2016.1198240.
    1. Carroll DD, Courtney-Long EA, Stevens AC, Sloan ML, Lullo C, Visser SN, Fox MH, Armour BS, Campbell VA, Brown DR, Dorn JM, Centers for Disease ControlPrevention (CDC) Vital signs: disability and physical activity--United States, 2009-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 May 9;63(18):407–13.
    1. Vandelanotte C, Müller AM, Short CE, Hingle M, Nathan N, Williams SL, Lopez ML, Parekh S, Maher CA. Past, present, and future of eHealth and mHealth research to improve physical activity and dietary behaviors. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016 Mar;48(3):219–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2015.12.006.
    1. Schoeppe S, Alley S, Van Lippevelde W, Bray NA, Williams SL, Duncan MJ, Vandelanotte C. Efficacy of interventions that use apps to improve diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 Dec 7;13(1):127. doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0454-y.
    1. Middelweerd A, Mollee JS, van der Wal CN, Brug J, Te Velde SJ. Apps to promote physical activity among adults: a review and content analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014 Jul 25;11:97. doi: 10.1186/s12966-014-0097-9.
    1. Mollee JS, Middelweerd A, Kurvers RL, Klein MC. What technological features are used in smartphone apps that promote physical activity? A review and content analysis. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2017 Jul 5;21(4):633–43. doi: 10.1007/s00779-017-1023-3.
    1. Rubin J, Chisnell D, Spool J. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests, Second Edition. US: Wiley; 2008. May, p. 384.
    1. Jones M, Morris J, Deruyter F. Mobile healthcare and people with disabilities: current state and future needs. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Mar 14;15(3) doi: 10.3390/ijerph15030515.
    1. Lai B, Young H, Bickel CS, Motl RW, Rimmer JH. Current trends in exercise intervention research, technology, and behavioral change strategies for people with disabilities: a scoping review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Oct;96(10):748–61. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000743.
    1. Creswell JW, Klassen AC, Plano Clark VL, Smith KC. Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Qual Soc Work. 2013 Jul 16;12(4):541–5. doi: 10.1177/1473325013493540a.
    1. Eysenbach G, CONSORT-EHEALTH Group CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of web-based and mobile health interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 31;13(4):e126. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1923.
    1. Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health. 1998 Jul;13(4):623–49. doi: 10.1080/08870449808407422.
    1. Ellis T, Motl RW. Physical activity behavior change in persons with neurologic disorders: overview and examples from Parkinson disease and multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2013 Jun;37(2):85–90. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e31829157c0.
    1. Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1985 Sep;10(3):141–6.
    1. Amireault S, Godin G, Lacombe J, Sabiston CM. The use of the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire in oncology research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Aug 12;15:60. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0045-7.
    1. Amireault S, Godin G. The Godin-Shephard leisure-time physical activity questionnaire: validity evidence supporting its use for classifying healthy adults into active and insufficiently active categories. Percept Mot Skills. 2015 Apr;120(2):604–22. doi: 10.2466/03.27.PMS.120v19x7.
    1. Motl RW, Bollaert RE, Sandroff BM. Validation of the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire classification coding system using accelerometry in multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol. 2018 Feb;63(1):77–82. doi: 10.1037/rep0000162.
    1. Johnson RB. Dialectical pluralism: a metaparadigm whose time has come. J Mix Methods Res. 2016 Jul 8;11(2):156–73. doi: 10.1177/1558689815607692.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V, Weate P. Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. US: Routledge Handbooks; 2016. Sep, Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research; pp. 191–205.
    1. Smith B, Sparks AC, editors. Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. US: Routledge International Handbooks; 2016. Introduction: An invitation to qualitative research, 2016; p. 518.
    1. Burke S. Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. US: Routledge International Handbooks; 2016. Sep, Rethinking validity and trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry: how might we judge the quality of qualitative research in sport exercise sciences.
    1. Richardson L, St Pierre EA. Writing: a method of inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1994. pp. 959–78.
    1. Lieblich A, Tuval-Mashiach R, Zilber T. Narrative Research. Reading, Analysis, and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 1998. p. 200.
    1. Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: eight “Big-Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq. 2010 Oct;16(10):837–51. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する