Development of a Weight Loss Mobile App Linked With an Accelerometer for Use in the Clinic: Usability, Acceptability, and Early Testing of its Impact on the Patient-Doctor Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although complications of obesity are well acknowledged and managed by clinicians, management of obesity itself is often difficult, which leads to its underdiagnosis and undertreatment in hospital settings. However, tools that could improve the management of obesity, including self-monitoring, engagement with a social network, and open channels of communication between the patient and doctor, are limited in a clinic-based setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the usability and acceptability of a newly developed mobile app linked with an accelerometer and its early effects on patient-doctor relationships. METHODS: From September 2013 to February 2014, we developed a mobile app linked with an accelerometer as a supportive tool for a clinic-based weight loss program. The app used information from electronic health records and delivered tailored educational material. Personal goal setting, as well as monitoring of weight changes and physical activity combined with feedback, are key features of the app. We also incorporated an interactive message board for patients and doctors. During the period of March 2014 to May 2014, we tested our mobile app for 1 month in participants in a hospital clinic setting. We assessed the app's usability and acceptability, as well as the patient-doctor relationship, via questionnaires and analysis of app usage data. RESULTS: We recruited 30 individuals (18 male and 12 female) for the study. The median number of log-ins per day was 1.21, with the most frequently requested item being setting goals, followed by track physical activities and view personal health status. Scales of the depth of the patient-doctor relationship decreased from 27.6 (SD 4.8) to 25.1 (SD 4.5) by a Wilcoxon signed rank test (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: A mobile phone app linked with an accelerometer for a clinic-based weight loss program is useful and acceptable for weight management but exhibited less favorable early effects on patient-doctor relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".