Engagement, Acceptability, Usability, and Preliminary Efficacy of a Self-Monitoring Mobile Health Intervention to Reduce Sedentary Behavior in Belgian Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study

Sofie Compernolle, Greet Cardon, Hidde P van der Ploeg, Femke Van Nassau, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Judith J Jelsma, Ruben Brondeel, Delfien Van Dyck, Sofie Compernolle, Greet Cardon, Hidde P van der Ploeg, Femke Van Nassau, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Judith J Jelsma, Ruben Brondeel, Delfien Van Dyck

Abstract

Background: Although healthy aging can be stimulated by the reduction of sedentary behavior, few interventions are available for older adults. Previous studies suggest that self-monitoring might be a promising behavior change technique to reduce older adults' sedentary behavior. However, little is known about older adults' experiences with a self-monitoring-based intervention aimed at the reduction of sedentary behavior.

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate engagement, acceptability, usability, and preliminary efficacy of a self-monitoring-based mHealth intervention developed to reduce older adults' sedentary behavior.

Methods: A mixed methods study was performed among 28 community-dwelling older adults living in Flanders, Belgium. The 3-week intervention consisted of general sedentary behavior information as well as visual and tactile feedback on participants' sedentary behavior. Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore engagement with, and acceptability and usability of, the intervention. Sitting time was measured using the thigh-worn activPAL (PAL Technologies) accelerometer before and after the intervention. System usage data of the app were recorded. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and paired-samples t tests; qualitative data were thematically analyzed and presented using pen profiles.

Results: Participants mainly reported positive feelings regarding the intervention, referring to it as motivating, surprising, and interesting. They commonly reported that the intervention changed their thinking (ie, they became more aware of their sedentary behavior) but not their actual behavior. There were mixed opinions on the kind of feedback (ie, tactile vs visual) that they preferred. The intervention was considered easy to use, and the design was described as clear. Some problems were noticed regarding attaching and wearing the self-monitoring device. System usage data showed that the median frequency of consulting the app widely differed among participants, ranging from 0 to 20 times a day. No significant reductions were found in objectively measured sitting time.

Conclusions: Although the intervention was well perceived by the majority of older adults, no reductions in sitting time were found. Possible explanations for the lack of reductions might be the short intervention duration or the fact that only bringing the habitual sedentary behavior into conscious awareness might not be sufficient to achieve behavior change.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04003324; https://tinyurl.com/y2p4g8hx.

Keywords: acceptability; engagement; mHealth; mixed methods; older adults; perceptions; self-monitoring.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Sofie Compernolle, Greet Cardon, Hidde P van der Ploeg, Femke Van Nassau, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Judith J Jelsma, Ruben Brondeel, Delfien Van Dyck. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 29.10.2020.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study procedure.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Screenshots of visual feedback provided by the Activator.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pen profile of engagement with the intervention.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Evolution of consulting visual feedback.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Pen profile on acceptability and usability of the intervention.

References

    1. Decade of Healthy Ageing 2020–2030. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2019. [2020-10-21]. .
    1. de la Maisonneuve C, Oliveira Martins J. Public Spending on Health And Long-Term Care: A New Set of Projections. Paris, France: OECD; 2013. Jun, .
    1. Maher JP, Sliwinski MJ, Conroy DE. Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an intervention to reduce older adults' sedentary behavior. Transl Behav Med. 2017 Mar;7(1):52–61. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0394-8.
    1. de Rezende LFM, Rey-López JP, Matsudo VKR, do Carmo Luiz O. Sedentary behavior and health outcomes among older adults: A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2014 Apr 09;14:333. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-333.
    1. Copeland JL, Ashe MC, Biddle SJ, Brown WJ, Buman MP, Chastin S, Gardiner PA, Inoue S, Jefferis BJ, Oka K, Owen N, Sardinha LB, Skelton DA, Sugiyama T, Dogra S. Sedentary time in older adults: A critical review of measurement, associations with health, and interventions. Br J Sports Med. 2017 Nov;51(21):1539. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097210.
    1. Rosenberg DE, Bellettiere J, Gardiner PA, Villarreal VN, Crist K, Kerr J. Independent associations between sedentary behaviors and mental, cognitive, physical, and functional health among older adults in retirement communities. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016 Jan;71(1):78–83. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv103.
    1. Ekelund U, Steene-Johannessen J, Brown WJ, Fagerland MW, Owen N, Powell KE, Bauman A, Lee I. Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. Lancet. 2016 Sep;388(10051):1302–1310. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30370-1.
    1. Harvey JA, Chastin SFM, Skelton DA. Prevalence of sedentary behavior in older adults: A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 Dec 02;10(12):6645–6661. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10126645.
    1. Maher JP, Conroy DE. A dual-process model of older adults' sedentary behavior. Health Psychol. 2016 Mar;35(3):262–272. doi: 10.1037/hea0000300.
    1. Gardner B, Smith L, Lorencatto F, Hamer M, Biddle SJH. How to reduce sitting time? A review of behaviour change strategies used in sedentary behaviour reduction interventions among adults. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(1):89–112. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2015.1082146.
    1. Welk GJ. The youth physical activity promotion model: A conceptual bridge between theory and practice. Quest. 1999 Feb;51(1):5–23. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1999.10484297.
    1. Verplanken B, Wood W. Interventions to break and create consumer habits. J Public Policy Mark. 2018 Oct 02;25(1):90–103. doi: 10.1509/jppm.25.1.90.
    1. Aarts H, Dijksterhuis A. The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(1):18–28. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.18.
    1. Hermsen S, Frost J, Renes RJ, Kerkhof P. Using feedback through digital technology to disrupt and change habitual behavior: A critical review of current literature. Comput Human Behav. 2016 Apr;57:61–74. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.023.
    1. Quinn JM, Pascoe A, Wood W, Neal DT. Can't control yourself? Monitor those bad habits. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010 Apr;36(4):499–511. doi: 10.1177/0146167209360665.
    1. Michie S, Ashford S, Sniehotta FF, Dombrowski SU, Bishop A, French DP. A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: The CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychol Health. 2011 Nov;26(11):1479–1498. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2010.540664.
    1. Compernolle S, DeSmet A, Poppe L, Crombez G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Cardon G, van der Ploeg HP, Van Dyck D. Effectiveness of interventions using self-monitoring to reduce sedentary behavior in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Aug 13;16(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0824-3.
    1. Perski O, Blandford A, West R, Michie S. Conceptualising engagement with digital behaviour change interventions: A systematic review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis. Transl Behav Med. 2017 Jun;7(2):254–267. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0453-1.
    1. Ayala GX, Elder JP. Qualitative methods to ensure acceptability of behavioral and social interventions to the target population. J Public Health Dent. 2011;71 Suppl 1:S69–S79. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00241.x.
    1. Gill JMR, Hawari NSA, Maxwell DJ, Louden D, Mourselas N, Bunn C, Gray CM, van der Ploeg HP, Hunt K, Martin A, Wyke S, Mutrie N. Validation of a novel device to measure and provide feedback on sedentary behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Mar;50(3):525–532. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001458.
    1. Renaud LR, Jelsma JG, Huysmans MA, van Nassau F, Lakerveld J, Speklé EM, Bosmans JE, Stijnman DP, Loyen A, van der Beek AJ, van der Ploeg HP. Effectiveness of the multi-component dynamic work intervention to reduce sitting time in office workers: Results from a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Appl Ergon. 2020 Apr;84:103027. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103027.
    1. Morris AS, Murphy RC, Shepherd SO, Healy GN, Edwardson CL, Graves LEF. A multi-component intervention to sit less and move more in a contact centre setting: A feasibility study. BMC Public Health. 2019 Mar 12;19(1):292. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6615-6.
    1. Winkler EAH, Bodicoat DH, Healy GN, Bakrania K, Yates T, Owen N, Dunstan DW, Edwardson CL. Identifying adults' valid waking wear time by automated estimation in activPAL data collected with a 24 h wear protocol. Physiol Meas. 2016 Oct;37(10):1653–1668. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/37/10/1653.
    1. Aguilar-Farias N, Martino-Fuentealba P, Salom-Diaz N, Brown WJ. How many days are enough for measuring weekly activity behaviours with the ActivPAL in adults? J Sci Med Sport. 2019 Jun;22(6):684–688. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.12.004.
    1. Poppe L, Van der Mispel C, Crombez G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Schroé H, Verloigne M. How users experience and use an eHealth intervention based on self-regulation: Mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Oct 01;20(10):e10412. doi: 10.2196/10412.
    1. Mohr DC, Schueller SM, Montague E, Burns MN, Rashidi P. The behavioral intervention technology model: An integrated conceptual and technological framework for eHealth and mHealth interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jun 05;16(6):e146. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3077.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. What can "thematic analysis" offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2014;9:26152. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.26152.
    1. Boddy LM, Knowles ZR, Davies IG, Warburton GL, Mackintosh KA, Houghton L, Fairclough SJ. Using formative research to develop the healthy eating component of the CHANGE! school-based curriculum intervention. BMC Public Health. 2012 Aug 29;12:710. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-710.
    1. Zhao J, Freeman B, Li M. Can mobile phone apps influence people's health behavior change? An evidence review. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Oct 31;18(11):e287. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5692.
    1. Kelders SM, Kok RN, Ossebaard HC, Van Gemert-Pijnen JEWC. Persuasive system design does matter: A systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 14;14(6):e152. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2104.
    1. Neal DT, Wood W, Quinn JM. Habits—A repeat performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2016 Jun 24;15(4):198–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00435.x.
    1. Wood W, Neal DT. Behav Sci Policy. 2016;2(1):71–83. doi: 10.1353/bsp.2016.0008.
    1. Maher JP, Conroy DE. A dual-process model of older adults' sedentary behavior. Health Psychol. 2016 Mar;35(3):262–272. doi: 10.1037/hea0000300.
    1. van der Ploeg HP, Hillsdon M. Is sedentary behaviour just physical inactivity by another name? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Oct 23;14(1):142. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0601-0.
    1. Wyke S, Bunn C, Andersen E, Silva MN, van Nassau F, McSkimming P, Kolovos S, Gill JMR, Gray CM, Hunt K, Anderson AS, Bosmans J, Jelsma JGM, Kean S, Lemyre N, Loudon DW, Macaulay L, Maxwell DJ, McConnachie A, Mutrie N, Nijhuis-van der Sanden M, Pereira HV, Philpott M, Roberts GC, Rooksby J, Røynesdal ØB, Sattar N, Sørensen M, Teixeira PJ, Treweek S, van Achterberg T, van de Glind I, van Mechelen W, van der Ploeg HP. The effect of a programme to improve men's sedentary time and physical activity: The European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2019 Feb;16(2):e1002736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002736.
    1. Hoque R, Sorwar G. Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: An extension of the UTAUT model. Int J Med Inform. 2017 May;101:75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.002.
    1. Compernolle S, De Cocker K, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Dyck D. Older adults' perceptions of sedentary behavior: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Gerontologist. 2019 Oct 31;:1. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnz127.
    1. Gilbert BJ, Goodman E, Chadda A, Hatfield D, Forman DE, Panch T. The role of mobile health in elderly populations. Curr Geriatr Rep. 2015 Aug 21;4(4):347–352. doi: 10.1007/s13670-015-0145-6.
    1. Farage MA, Miller KW, Ajayi F, Hutchins D. Design principles to accommodate older adults. Glob J Health Sci. 2012 Feb 29;4(2):2–25. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v4n2p2. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v4n2p2.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj