Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28428155›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Using Persuasive Technology to Increase Physical Activity in People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease by Encouraging Regular Walking: A Mixed-Methods Study Exploring Opinions and Preferences.

Yvonne Kiera Bartlett, Thomas L Webb, Mark S Hawley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Uncovering the Heterogeneity in Fitness App Use: A Latent Class Analysis of Chinese Users.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Switching to Green Lifestyles: Behavior Change of Ant Forest Users.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yvonne Kiera BartlettManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5913-3014
Thomas L WebbDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9320-0068
Mark S HawleyCentre for Assistive Technology and Connected Healthcare and School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2349-4491
University of Sheffield · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PwCOPD) often experience breathlessness and fatigue, making physical activity challenging. Although many persuasive technologies (such as mobile phone apps) have been designed to support physical activity among members of the general population, current technologies aimed at PwCOPD are underdeveloped and only use a limited range of persuasive technology design principles.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore how acceptable different persuasive technology design principles were considered to be in supporting and encouraging physical activity among PwCOPD.

methodsThree prototypes for mobile apps using different persuasive technology design principles as defined by the persuasive systems design (PSD) model-namely, dialogue support, primary task support, and social support-were developed. Opinions of these prototypes were explored through 28 interviews with PwCOPD, carers, and the health care professionals (HCPs) involved in their care and questionnaires completed by 87 PwCOPD. Participants also ranked how likely individual techniques (eg, competition) would be to convince them to use a technology designed to support physical activity. Data were analyzed using framework analysis, Friedman tests, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests and a convergent mixed methods design was used to integrate findings.

resultsThe prototypes for mobile apps were received positively by participants. The prototype that used a dialogue support approach was identified as the most likely to be used or recommended by those interviewed, and was perceived as more persuasive than both of the other prototypes (Z=-3.06, P=.002; Z=-5.50, P<.001) by those who completed the questionnaire. PwCOPD identified dialogue support and primary task support techniques as more likely to convince them to use a technology than social support techniques (Z=-5.00, P<.001; Z=-4.92, P<.001, respectively). Opinions of social support techniques such as competition and collaboration were divided.

conclusionsDialogue support and primary task support approaches are considered to be both acceptable and likely to be persuasive by PwCOPD, carers, and HCPs. In the future, these approaches should be considered when designing apps to encourage physical activity by PwCOPD.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAgedExerciseFemaleHumansMalePersuasive CommunicationPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSocial SupportTelemedicineWalkingchronic obstructive pulmonary diseasemHealthmobile appspersuasive technologyphysical activitywalking

Identifiers

PMID28428155
PMCPMC5418523
OpenAlexW2606208330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.