Development and Usability Testing of an Internet Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Overweight Adolescents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Internet interventions may provide opportunities for low threshold counseling using feedback to guide and support health behavior, including increased physical activity. Research shows that overweight and obese adolescents are less physically active than their peers of normal weight. There are good reasons to believe that Internet-based interventions may be particularly suitable for motivating adolescents to increase physical activity, but we need to gain further knowledge of what features are effective and how to design such interventions. OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of development and evaluation of usability of a Web-based program for increasing physical activity in overweight adolescents. METHODS: Informed by the self-determination theory, motivational interviewing, and perspectives on self-regulation, this intervention was developed in a stepwise process by an interdisciplinary team of researchers, designers, developers, and representatives from the target group. An iterative qualitative usability testing approach (observation, survey, and interview) was applied in 2 sequences, first in the lab and second in the field, to assess how adolescents (aged 12-16 years) used and experienced the program and to make adjustments to the program based on evaluation of their response. RESULTS: The following components were included in the program: self-monitoring through planning and registration of physical activity and graphical response on progress, autonomy supportive individual Web-based counseling, forum for social support, and relevant age-adjusted information about physical activity. The first usability test resulted in adjustments related mainly to making the content and aim of the different features more visible and explicit. The second test evaluated the program with adjustments from the first test, revealing that the program was well accepted by the participants and only small aesthetic adjustments had to be made to complete the final version of the Internet program, Young & Active. CONCLUSIONS: Thorough preparation, with clear theory foundation and close monitoring in the developmental phase, as well as contribution and iterative evaluation from the target group, is essential to create a user-friendly and engaging program. The efficacy of the program will be evaluated in a controlled trial.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».