mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Technologies for physical activity self-monitoring: a study of differences between users and non-users
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Embedded Systems.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7882-5438
Mälardalen University, School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Health and Welfare.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4537-030X
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Embedded Systems.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1940-1747
2017 (English)In: Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, ISSN 1179-1543, E-ISSN 1179-1543, Vol. 8, 17-26 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Different kinds of physical activity (PA) self-monitoring technologies are used today to monitor and motivate PA behavior change. The user focus is essential in the development process of this technology, including potential future users such as representatives from the group of non-users. There is also a need to study whether there are differences between the groups of users and non-users. The aims of this study were to investigate possible differences between users and non-users regarding their opinions about PA self-monitoring technologies and to investigate differences in demographic variables between the groups. Materials and methods: Participants were randomly selected from seven municipalities in central Sweden. In total, 107 adults responded to the Physical Activity Products Questionnaire, which consisted of 22 questions. Results: Significant differences between the users and non-users were shown for six of the 20 measurement-related items: measures accurately (p = 0.007), measures with high precision (p = 0.024), measures distance (p = 0.020), measures speed (p = 0.003), shows minutes of activity (p = 0.004), and shows geographical position (p = 0.000). Significant differences between the users and non-users were also found for two of the 29 encouragement items: measures accurately (p = 0.001) and has long-term memory (p = 0.019). Significant differences between the groups were also shown for level of education (p = 0.030) and level of physical exercise (p = 0.037). Conclusion: With a few exceptions, the users and the non-users in this study had similar opinions about PA self-monitoring technologies. Because this study showed significant differences regarding level of education and level of physical exercise, these demographic variables seemed more relevant to investigate than differences in opinions about the PA self-monitoring technologies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD , 2017. Vol. 8, 17-26 p.
National Category
Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Information Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-35358DOI: 10.2147/OAJSM.S124542ISI: 000399936500001PubMedID: 28280399OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-35358DiVA: diva2:1097311
Available from: 2017-05-22 Created: 2017-05-22 Last updated: 2017-05-22Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Åkerberg, AnnaSöderlund, AnneLindén, Maria
By organisation
Embedded SystemsHealth and Welfare
In the same journal
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Information Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 1 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf