Mark Janssen
Fontys University of Applied Sciences
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Mark Janssen.
PLOS ONE | 2017
Mark Janssen; Jeroen Scheerder; Erik Thibaut; Ac Aarnout Brombacher; Steven Vos
Individual and unorganized sports with a health-related focus, such as recreational running, have grown extensively in the last decade. Consistent with this development, there has been an exponential increase in the availability and use of electronic monitoring devices such as smartphone applications (apps) and sports watches. These electronic devices could provide support and monitoring for unorganized runners, who have no access to professional trainers and coaches. The purpose of this paper is to gain insight into the characteristics of event runners who use running-related apps and sports watches. This knowledge is useful from research, design, and marketing perspectives to adequately address unorganized runners’ needs, and to support them in healthy and sustainable running through personalized technology. Data used in this study are drawn from the standardized online Eindhoven Running Survey 2014 (ERS14). In total, 2,172 participants in the Half Marathon Eindhoven 2014 completed the questionnaire (a response rate of 40.0%). Binary logistic regressions were used to analyze the impact of socio-demographic variables, running-related variables, and psychographic characteristics on the use of running-related apps and sports watches. Next, consumer profiles were identified. The results indicate that the use of monitoring devices is affected by socio-demographics as well as sports-related and psychographic variables, and this relationship depends on the type of monitoring device. Therefore, distinctive consumer profiles have been developed to provide a tool for designers and manufacturers of electronic running-related devices to better target (unorganized) runners’ needs through personalized and differentiated approaches. Apps are more likely to be used by younger, less experienced and involved runners. Hence, apps have the potential to target this group of novice, less trained, and unorganized runners. In contrast, sports watches are more likely to be used by a different group of runners, older and more experienced runners with higher involvement. Although apps and sports watches may potentially promote and stimulate sports participation, these electronic devices do require a more differentiated approach to target specific needs of runners. Considerable efforts in terms of personalization and tailoring have to be made to develop the full potential of these electronic devices as drivers for healthy and sustainable sports participation.
Jmir mhealth and uhealth | 2018
Joan Dallinga; Mark Janssen; Jet van der Werf; Ruben Walravens; Steven Vos; Marije Deutekom
Background A large number of people participate in individual or unorganized sports on a recreational level. Furthermore, many participants drop out because of injury or lowered motivation. Potentially, physical activity–related apps could motivate people during sport participation and help them to follow and maintain a healthy active lifestyle. It remains unclear what the quality of running, cycling, and walking apps is and how it can be assessed. Quality of these apps was defined as having a positive influence on participation in recreational sports. This information will show which features need to be assessed when rating physical activity–related app quality. Objective The aim of this study was to identify expert perception on which features are important for the effectiveness of physical activity–related apps for participation in individual, recreational sports. Methods Data were gathered via an expert panel approach using the nominal group technique. Two expert panels were organized to identify and rank app features relevant for sport participation. Experts were researchers or professionals in the field of industrial design and information technology (technology expert panel) and in the field of behavior change, health, and human movement sciences who had affinity with physical activity–related apps (health science expert panel). Of the 24 experts who were approached, 11 (46%) agreed to participate. Each panel session consisted of three consultation rounds. The 10 most important features per expert were collected. We calculated the frequency of the top 10 features and the mean importance score per feature (0-100). The sessions were taped and transcribed verbatim; a thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data. Results In the technology expert panel, applied feedback and feedforward (91.3) and fun (91.3) were found most important (scale 0-100). Together with flexibility and look and feel, these features were mentioned most often (all n=4 [number of experts]; importance scores=41.3 and 43.8, respectively). The experts in the health science expert panels a and b found instructional feedback (95.0), motivating or challenging (95.0), peer rating and use (92.0), motivating feedback (91.3), and monitoring or statistics (91.0) most important. Most often ranked features were monitoring or statistics, motivating feedback, works good technically, tailoring starting point, fun, usability anticipating or context awareness, and privacy (all n=3-4 [number of experts]; importance scores=16.7-95.0). The qualitative analysis resulted in four overarching themes: (1) combination behavior change, technical, and design features needed; (2) extended feedback and tailoring is advised; (3) theoretical or evidence base as standard; and (4) entry requirements related to app use. Conclusions The results show that a variety of features, including design, technical, and behavior change, are considered important for the effectiveness of physical activity–related apps by experts from different fields of expertise. These insights may assist in the development of an improved app rating scale.
Procedia Engineering | 2016
Steven Vos; Mark Janssen; Jos Goudsmit; Coen Lauwerijssen; Ac Aarnout Brombacher
Archive | 2015
Steven Vos; Mark Janssen; Jos Goudsmit; Jeroen Bovens; R Stoof; Coen Lauwerijssen
Archive | 2018
Jos Goudsmit; Mark Janssen; Simone Luijten; Steven Vos
Sportgericht | 2017
Mark Janssen; S Laurijssens; T Tumaini; Joan Dallinga; Marije Baart de la Faille-Deutekom; Steven Vos
Archive | 2017
Joan Dallinga; Marije Baart de la Faille-Deutekom; Mark Janssen; Steven Vos
Archive | 2017
Joan Dallinga; Marije Baart de la Faille-Deutekom; Mark Janssen
Archive | 2017
Joan Dallinga; J.E. van der Werf; Mark Janssen; Steven Vos; M. Deutekom-Baart de la Faille
Archive | 2016
Mark Janssen; Ruben Walravens; Jos Goudsmit; Steven Vos