Community Engagement in the Development of an mHealth-Enabled Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Intervention (Step It Up): Pilot Focus Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research is an effective tool for improving health outcomes in minority communities. Few community-based participatory research studies have evaluated methods of optimizing smartphone apps for health technology-enabled interventions in African Americans. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to utilize focus groups (FGs) for gathering qualitative data to inform the development of an app that promotes physical activity (PA) among African American women in Washington, DC. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of African American women (N=16, age range 51-74 years) from regions of Washington, DC metropolitan area with the highest burden of cardiovascular disease. Participants used an app created by the research team, which provided motivational messages through app push notifications and educational content to promote PA. Subsequently, participants engaged in semistructured FG interviews led by moderators who asked open-ended questions about participants' experiences of using the app. FGs were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim, with subsequent behavioral theory-driven thematic analysis. Key themes based on the Health Belief Model and emerging themes were identified from the transcripts. Three independent reviewers iteratively coded the transcripts until consensus was reached. Then, the final codebook was approved by a qualitative research expert. RESULTS: In this study, 10 main themes emerged. Participants emphasized the need to improve the app by optimizing automation, increasing relatability (eg, photos that reflect target demographic), increasing educational material (eg, health information), and connecting with community resources (eg, cooking classes and exercise groups). CONCLUSIONS: Involving target users in the development of a culturally sensitive PA app is an essential step for creating an app that has a higher likelihood of acceptance and use in a technology-enabled intervention. This may decrease health disparities in cardiovascular diseases by more effectively increasing PA in a minority population.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".