mHealth Self-Report Monitoring in Competitive Middle- and Long-Distance Runners: Qualitative Study of Long-Term Use Intentions Using the Technology Acceptance Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International middle- and long-distance running competitions attract millions of spectators in association with city races, world championships, and Olympic Games. It is therefore a major concern that ill health and pain, as a result of sports overuse, lead to numerous hours of lost training and decreased performance in competitive runners. Despite its potential for sustenance of performance, approval of mHealth self-report monitoring (mHSM) in this group of athletes has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to explore individual and situational factors associated with the acceptance of long-term mHSM in competitive runners. METHODS: The study used qualitative research methods with the Technology Acceptance Model as the theoretical foundation. The study population included 20 middle- and long-distance runners competing at national and international levels. Two mHSM apps asking for health and training data from track and marathon runners were created on a platform for web survey development (Briteback AB). Data collection for the technology acceptance analysis was performed via personal interviews before and after a 6-week monitoring period. Preuse interviews investigated experience and knowledge of mHealth monitoring and thoughts on benefits and possible side effects. The postuse interviews addressed usability and usefulness, attitudes toward nonfunctional issues, and intentions to adhere to long-term monitoring. In addition, the runners' trustworthiness when providing mHSM data was discussed. The interview data were investigated using a deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The mHSM apps were considered technically easy to use. Although the runners read the instructions and entered data effortlessly, some still perceived mHSM as problematic. Concerns were raised about the selection of items for monitoring (eg, recording training load as running distance or time) and about interpretation of concepts (eg, whether subjective well-being should encompass only the running context or daily living on the whole). Usefulness of specific mHSM apps was consequently not appraised on the same bases in different subcategories of runners. Regarding nonfunctional issues, the runners competing at the international level requested detailed control over who in their sports club and national federation should be allowed access to their data; the less competitive runners had no such issues. Notwithstanding, the runners were willing to adhere to long-term mHSM, provided the technology was adjusted to their personal routines and the output was perceived as contributing to running performance. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of mHSM by competitive runners requires clear definitions of monitoring purpose and populations, repeated in practice tests of monitoring items and terminology, and meticulousness regarding data-sharing routines. Further naturalistic studies of mHSM use in routine sports practice settings are needed with nonfunctional ethical and legal issues included in the evaluation designs.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".