Wearable Activity Tracker Use Among Australian Adolescents: Usability and Acceptability Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Wearable activity trackers have the potential to be integrated into physical activity interventions, yet little is known about how adolescents use these devices or perceive their acceptability. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the usability and acceptability of a wearable activity tracker among adolescents. A secondary aim was to determine adolescents' awareness and use of the different functions and features in the wearable activity tracker and accompanying app. METHODS: Sixty adolescents (aged 13-14 years) in year 8 from 3 secondary schools in Melbourne, Australia, were provided with a wrist-worn Fitbit Flex and accompanying app, and were asked to use it for 6 weeks. Demographic data (age, sex) were collected via a Web-based survey completed during week 1 of the study. At the conclusion of the 6-week period, all adolescents participated in focus groups that explored their perceptions of the usability and acceptability of the Fitbit Flex, accompanying app, and Web-based Fitbit profile. Qualitative data were analyzed using pen profiles, which were constructed from verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: Adolescents typically found the Fitbit Flex easy to use for activity tracking, though greater difficulties were reported for monitoring sleep. The Fitbit Flex was perceived to be useful for tracking daily activities, and adolescents used a range of features and functions available through the device and the app. Barriers to use included the comfort and design of the Fitbit Flex, a lack of specific feedback about activity levels, and the inability to wear the wearable activity tracker for water-based sports. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents reported that the Fitbit Flex was easy to use and that it was a useful tool for tracking daily activities. A number of functions and features were used, including the device's visual display to track and self-monitor activity, goal-setting in the accompanying app, and undertaking challenges against friends. However, several barriers to use were identified, which may impact on sustained use over time. Overall, wearable activity trackers have the potential to be integrated into physical activity interventions targeted at adolescents, but both the functionality and wearability of the monitor should be considered.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».