Technical Assistance Received by Older Adults to Use Commercially Available Physical Activity Monitors (Ready Steady 3.0 Trial): Ad-Hoc Descriptive Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite evidence that regular physical activity (PA) among older adults confers numerous health and functional benefits, PA participation rates are low. Using commercially available wearable PA monitors (PAMs) is one way to augment PA promotion efforts. However, while expert recommendations exist for the specific information needed at the beginning of PAM ownership and the general ongoing need for structures that support as-needed technical troubleshooting, information is lacking about the type, frequency, and modes of assistance needed during initial and long-term ownership. Objective: This paper describes problems reported and technical assistance received by older adults who used PAMs during the 18 months they participated in a community-based PA trial: Ready Steady 3.0 (RS3). Methods: This was an ad-hoc longitudinal analysis of process variables representing technical problems reported and assistance received by 113 RS3 study participants in the 18 months after their orientation to PAMs. Variables included date of contact, problem(s) reported, mode of technical assistance, and whether the equipment was replaced. The descriptive analysis included frequencies and incidence rates of distinct contacts, types of problems, and technical assistance modes. Results: On average, participants were aged 77 (SD 5.2) years. Most identified as female (n=87, 77%), reported experience using smartphones (n=92, 81.4%), and used the PAM between 2 and 18 months. Eighty-two participants (72.6%) reported between 1 to 9 problems with using PAMs, resulting in a total of 150 technical assistance contacts with a mean of 1.3 (SD 1.3) contacts. The incidence rate of new, distinct contacts for technical assistance was 99 per 100 persons per year from 2018 to 2021. The most common problems were wearing the PAM (n=43, 28.7%), reading its display (n=23, 15.3%), logging into its app (n=20, 13.3%), charging it (n=18, 12%), and synchronizing it to the app (n=16, 10.7%). The modalities of technical assistance were in person (n=53, 35.3%), by telephone (n=51, 34%), by email (n=25, 16.7%), and by postal mail (n=21, 14%). Conclusions: In general, the results of this study show that after receiving orientation to PAMs, problems such as uncomfortable wristbands, difficulty using the PAM or its related app, and obtaining or interpreting relevant personal data were occasionally reported by participants in RS3. Trained staff helped participants troubleshoot and solve these technical problems primarily in person or by phone. Results also underscore the importance of involving older adults in the design, usability testing, and supportive material development processes to prevent technical problems for the initial and ongoing use of PAMs. Clinicians and researchers should further assess technical assistance needed by older adults, accounting for variations in PAM models and wear time, while investigating additional assistance strategies, such as proactive support, short GIF videos, and video calls.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".