Implementation of Remote Activity Sensing to Support a Rehabilitation Aftercare Program: Observational Mixed Methods Study With Patients and Health Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity is central to maintaining the quality of life for patients with complex chronic conditions and is thus at the core of neurorehabilitation. However, maintaining activity improvements in daily life is challenging. The novel Stay With It program aims to promote physical activity after neurorehabilitation by cultivating self-monitoring skills and habits. OBJECTIVE: We examined the implementation of the Stay With It program at the Valens Rehabilitation Centre in Switzerland using the normalization process theory framework, focusing on 3 research aims. We aimed to examine the challenges and facilitators of program implementation from the perspectives of patients and health care professionals. We aimed to evaluate the potential of activity sensors to support program implementation and patient acceptance. Finally, we aimed to evaluate patients' engagement in physical activity after rehabilitation, patients' self-reported achievement of home activity goals, and factors influencing physical activity. METHODS: Patients were enrolled if they had a disease that was either chronic or at risk for chronicity and participated in the Stay With It program. Patients were assessed at baseline, the end of rehabilitation, and a 3-month follow-up. The health care professionals designated to deliver the program were surveyed before and after program implementation. We used a mixed methods approach combining standardized questionnaires, activity-sensing data (patients only), and free-text questions. RESULTS: This study included 23 patients and 13 health care professionals. The diverse needs of patients and organizational hurdles were major challenges to program implementation. Patients' intrinsic motivation and health care professionals' commitment to refining the program emerged as key facilitators. Both groups recognized the value of activity sensors in supporting program implementation and sustainability. Although patients appreciated the sensor's ability to monitor, motivate, and quantify activity, health care professionals saw the sensor as a motivational tool but expressed concerns about technical difficulties and potential inaccuracies. Physical activity levels after patients returned home varied considerably, both within and between individuals. The self-reported achievement of activity goals at home also varied, in part because of vague definitions. Common barriers to maintaining activity at home were declining health and fatigue often resulting from heat and pain. At the 3-month follow-up, 35% (8/23) of the patients withdrew from the study, with most citing deteriorating physical health as the reason and that monitoring and discussing their low activity would negatively affect their mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating aftercare programs like Stay With It into routine care is vital for maintaining physical activity postrehabilitation. Although activity trackers show promise in promoting motivation through monitoring, they may lead to frustration during health declines. Their acceptability may also be influenced by an individual's health status, habits, and technical skills. Our study highlights the importance of considering health care professionals' perspectives when integrating new interventions into routine care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".