Feasibility of Real-time Behavior Monitoring Via Mobile Technology in Czech Adults Aged 50 Years and Above: 12-Week Study With Ecological Momentary Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Czech older adults have lower rates of physical activity than the average population and lag behind in the use of digital technologies, compared with their peers from other European countries. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the feasibility of intensive behavior monitoring through technology in Czech adults aged ≥50 years. METHODS: Participants (N=30; mean age 61.2 years, SD 6.8 years, range 50-74 years; 16/30, 53% male; 7/30, 23% retired) were monitored for 12 weeks while wearing a Fitbit Charge 2 monitor and completed three 8-day bursts of intensive data collection through surveys presented on a custom-made mobile app. Web-based surveys were also completed before and at the end of the 12-week period (along with poststudy focus groups) to evaluate participants' perceptions of their experience in the study. RESULTS: All 30 participants completed the study. Across the three 8-day bursts, participants completed 1454 out of 1744 (83% compliance rate) surveys administered 3 times per day on a pseudorandom schedule, 451 out of 559 (81% compliance rate) end-of-day surveys, and 736 episodes of self-reported planned physical activity (with 29/736, 3.9% of the reports initiated but returned without data). The overall rating of using the mobile app and Fitbit was above average (74.5 out of 100 on the System Usability Scale). The majority reported that the Fitbit (27/30, 90%) and mobile app (25/30, 83%) were easy to use and rated their experience positively (25/30, 83%). Focus groups revealed that some surveys were missed owing to notifications not being noticed or that participants needed a longer time window for survey completion. Some found wearing the monitor in hot weather or at night uncomfortable, but overall, participants were highly motivated to complete the surveys and be compliant with the study procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a mobile survey app coupled with a wearable device appears feasible for use among Czech older adults. Participants in this study tolerated the intensive assessment schedule well, but lower compliance may be expected in studies of more diverse groups of older adults. Some difficulties were noted with the pairing and synchronization of devices on some types of smartphones, posing challenges for large-scale studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".