Developing and testing the usability, acceptability, and future implementation of the Whole Day Matters Tool and User Guide for primary care providers using think-aloud, near-live, and interview procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada's 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults have shifted the focus from considering movement behaviours (i.e., physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep) separately to a 24-h paradigm, which considers how they are integrated. Accordingly, primary care providers (PCPs) have the opportunity to improve their practice to promote all movement behaviours cohesively. However, PCPs have faced barriers to discussing physical activity alone (e.g., time, competing priorities, inadequate training), leading to low frequency of physical activity discussions. Consequently, discussing three movement behaviours may seem challenging. Tools to facilitate primary care discussions about physical activity have been developed and used; however, few have undergone usability testing and none have integrated all movement behaviours. Following a synthesis of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep tools for PCPs, we developed the Whole Day Matters Tool and User Guide that incorporate all movement behaviours. The present study aimed to explore PCPs' perceptions on the usability, acceptability, and future implementation of the Whole Day Matters Tool and User Guide to improve their relevancy among PCPs. METHODS: Twenty-six PCPs were observed and audio-video recorded while using the Tool and User Guide in a think-aloud procedure, then in a near-live encounter with a mock service-user. A debriefing interview using a guide informed by Normalization Process Theory followed. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis and a critical friend to enhance rigour. RESULTS: PCPs valued aspects of the Tool and User Guide including their structure, user-friendliness, visual appeal, and multi-behaviour focus and suggested modifications to improve usability and acceptability. Findings are further discussed in the context of Normalization Process Theory and previous literature. CONCLUSIONS: The Tool and User Guide were revised, including adding plain language, reordering and renaming sections, reducing text, and clarifying instructions. Results also informed the addition of a Preamble and a Handout for adults accessing care (i.e., patients/clients/service-users) to explain the evidence underpinning the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults and support a person-centered approach. These four resources (i.e., Tool, User Guide, Preamble, Handout) have since undergone a consensus building process to arrive at their final versions before being disseminated into primary care practice.
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 | 0.048 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".