Designing for the Co-Use of Consumer Health Technology in Self-Management of Adolescent Overweight and Obesity: Mixed Methods Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity in adolescents has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Consumer health technology (CHT) can serve as a behavioral and social support tool for the management of overweight in adolescence. Recognizing CHT as a social support tool during design enables input from multiple stakeholders who engage in shared co-use to reinforce and empower adolescents in their self-management efforts. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore design requirements and enabling factors for the use of CHT as a social support tool for patients (as primary users) and parents and health care providers (as co-users). Our model incorporates key components of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) within the framework of the obesity care model (OCM) by recognizing patient self-management as the central process with the influence of their care support network on CHT use and outcomes. METHODS: This study was part of a larger two-staged usability study combining focus group, semistructured interviews, and usability walkthroughs of CHT mockups from adolescents (BMI in the 85th-99th percentile range), parents, and physicians. In phase 1, 48 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 years, 10 of their parents, and 6 health care providers participated in identifying design requirements and enabling factors for the use of a potential CHT. In phase 2, 70 adolescents and 10 health care providers evaluated the CHT mockups and indicated enabling factors and willingness to use the proposed CHT. RESULTS: Our qualitative analysis identified adolescents' intention for the use of CHT in alignment with UTAUT elements of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions. Our reconceptualization of social influence identified the expectations and envisioned roles of parents and health care providers as co-users and influencing factors on the co-use of CHT in managing overweight in adolescence. Parents were expected to monitor, to provide guidance and motivation, and to suggest modifications in daily habits, for example, recipes and meals, whereas health care providers were expected to encourage and monitor progress in a clinical setting. These expected roles and co-use patterns were congruent among all 3 stakeholders; the co-use of CHT was desired to be minimally invasive for parents and health care providers and controlled by the adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Our study integrates and extends the perspectives of 2 seminal models to explore design features and social influence roles for the successful user-centered design of CHT for weight self-management in adolescents. Although the co-users (ie, adolescents, parents, health care providers) suggested differing features consistent with their roles, role definitions were congruent. All users recognized the adolescent as the primary user with differential, supportive use from parents and health care providers. This multistakeholder approach can guide successful CHT design that reinforces the collective perspective of self-management.
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 | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".