Applying Mobile Technology to Sustain Physical Activity After Completion of Cardiac Rehabilitation: Acceptability Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many patients do not meet the recommended levels of physical activity after completing a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program. Wearable activity trackers and mobile phone apps are promising potential self-management tools for maintaining physical activity after CR completion. OBJECTIVE This study aims to evaluate the acceptability of a wearable device, mobile app, and push messages to facilitate physical activity following CR completion. METHODS We used semistructured interviews to assess the acceptability of various mobile technologies after participation in a pilot randomized controlled trial. Intervention patients in the randomized controlled trial wore the Fitbit Charge 2, used the Movn mobile app, and received push messages on cardiovascular disease prevention and physical activity for over 2 months. We asked 26 intervention group participants for feedback about their experience with the technology and conducted semistructured individual interviews with 7 representative participants. We used thematic analysis to create the main themes from individual interviews. RESULTS Our sample included participants with a mean age of 66.7 (SD 8.6) years; 23% (6/26) were female. Overall, there were varying levels of satisfaction with different technology components. There were 7 participants who completed the satisfaction questionnaires and participated in the interviews. The Fitbit and Movn mobile app received high satisfaction scores of 4.86 and 4.5, respectively, whereas push messages had a score of 3.14 out of 5. We identified four main themes through the interviews: technology use increased motivation to be physically active, technology use served as a reminder to be physically active, recommendations for technology to improve user experience, and desire for personal feedback. CONCLUSIONS By applying a wearable activity tracker, mobile phone app, and push messages, our study showed strong potential for the adoption of new technologies by older adults to maintain physical activity after CR completion. Future research should include a larger sample over a longer period using a mixed methods approach to assess the efficacy of technology use for promoting long-term physical activity behavior in older adults.
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 | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".