MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4283319129 · doi:10.2196/32354

Breast Cancer Physical Activity Mobile Intervention: Early Findings From a User Experience and Acceptability Mixed Methods Study

2022· article· en· W4283319129 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gabriel Ruiz Signorelli, Francisco Monteiro-Guerra, Octavio Rivera-Romero, Francisco J. Núñez-Benjumea, Luis Fernández-Luque

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCancer survivorship and care
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesInsight SFI Research Centre for Data AnalyticsHORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie ActionsUniversity College DublinEuropean CommissionUniversidad de Sevilla
Mots-clésUsabilitySession (web analytics)System usability scaleIntervention (counseling)CoachingHealth coachingScale (ratio)mHealthBreast cancerPsychologyRating scaleMobile appsMedicineApplied psychologyComputer scienceCancerPsychological interventionHeuristic evaluationNursingWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionDevelopmental psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is the most well-established lifestyle factor associated with breast cancer (BC) survival. Even women with advanced BC may benefit from moderate PA. However, most BC symptoms and treatment side effects are barriers to PA. Mobile health coaching systems can implement functionalities and features based on behavioral change theories to promote healthier behaviors. However, to increase its acceptability among women with BC, it is essential that these digital persuasive systems are designed considering their contextual characteristics, needs, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the potential acceptability and feasibility of a mobile-based intervention to promote PA in patients with BC; assess usability and other aspects of the user experience; and identify key considerations and aspects for future improvements, which may help increase and sustain acceptability and engagement. METHODS: A mixed methods case series evaluation of usability and acceptability was conducted in this study. The study comprised 3 sessions: initial, home, and final sessions. Two standardized scales were used: the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form. Participants were asked to use the app at home for approximately 2 weeks. App use and PA data were collected from the app and stored on a secure server during this period. In the final session, the participants filled in 2 app evaluation scales and took part in a short individual interview. They also completed the System Usability Scale and the user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale. Participants were provided with a waist pocket, wired in-ear headphones, and a smartphone. They also received printed instructions. A content analysis of the qualitative data collected in the interviews was conducted iteratively, ensuring that no critical information was overlooked. RESULTS: The International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form found that all participants (n=4) were moderately active; however, half of them did not reach the recommended levels in the guidelines. System Usability Scale scores were all >70 out of 100 (72.5, 77.5, 95, and 80), whereas the overall user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale scores were 4, 4.3, 4.4, and 3.6 out of 5. The app was perceived to be nice, user-friendly, straightforward, and easy to understand. Recognition of achievements, the possibility of checking activity history, and the rescheduling option were positively highlighted. Technical difficulties with system data collection, particularly with the miscount of steps, could make users feel frustrated. The participants suggested improvements and indicated that the app has the potential to work well for survivors of BC. CONCLUSIONS: Early results presented in this study point to the potential of this tool concept to provide a friendly and satisfying coaching experience to users, which may help improve PA adherence in survivors of BC.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,609
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,503
Écart entre enseignants0,438 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations24
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Formative ResearchMême sujetCancer survivorship and careTravaux en français237 207