Renée Verwey

A pilot study of a tool to stimulate physical activity in patients with COPD or type 2 diabetes in primary care

Summary We tested the performance, acceptance and user satisfaction of a tool to stimulate physical activity. The tool consisted of an accelerometer, a smartphone app and a server/web application. Patients received feedback concerning their physical activity relative to a goal, which was set in dialogue with their practice nurse. Nurses could monitor their patients’ physical activity via a website. Twenty patients with COPD or type 2 diabetes used the tool for three months, combined with behaviour change counselling. Physical activity data were collected at the server and a log file was used to record technical problems. We interviewed patients and nurses after every consultation. At baseline, and after the intervention, patients completed questionnaires. Participants were positive about the tool, although motivation dropped when technical problems occurred caused by log-in and connectivity errors. On average, physical activity increased from 29 (SD 21) min per day in the first two weeks to 39 (SD 24) min per day in the last two weeks (P = 0.02), and quality of life scores increased from 0.76 (SD 0.21) to 0.84 (SD 0.17) (P = 0.04). Provided that no connectivity problems occur, the tool is a feasible intervention when embedded in primary care, and has a positive effect on physical activity levels.

It's LiFe! Mobile and Web-Based Monitoring and Feedback Tool Embedded in Primary Care Increases Physical Activity: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Physical inactivity is a major public health problem. The It’s LiFe! monitoring and feedback tool embedded in the Self-Management Support Program (SSP) is an attempt to stimulate physical activity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or type 2 diabetes treated in primary care. Objective Our aim was to evaluate whether the SSP combined with the use of the monitoring and feedback tool leads to more physical activity compared to usual care and to evaluate the additional effect of using this tool on top of the SSP. Methods This was a three-armed cluster randomised controlled trial. Twenty four family practices were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which participants received the tool + SSP (group 1), the SSP (group 2), or care as usual (group 3). The primary outcome measure was minutes of physical activity per day. The secondary outcomes were general and exercise self-efficacy and quality of life. Outcomes were measured at baseline after the intervention (4-6 months), and 3 months thereafter. Results The group that received the entire intervention (tool + SSP) showed more physical activity directly after the intervention than Group 3 (mean difference 11.73, 95% CI 6.21-17.25; P<.001), and Group 2 (mean difference 7.86, 95% CI 2.18-13.54; P=.003). Three months after the intervention, this effect was still present and significant (compared to Group 3: mean difference 10.59, 95% CI 4.94-16.25; P<.001; compared to Group 2: mean difference 9.41, 95% CI 3.70-15.11; P<.001). There was no significant difference in effect between Groups 2 and 3 on both time points. There was no interaction effect for disease type. Conclusions The combination of counseling with the tool proved an effective way to stimulate physical activity. Counseling without the tool was not effective. Future research about the cost-effectiveness and application under more tailored conditions and in other target groups is recommended. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01867970, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01867970 (archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6a2qR5BSr).

Usability testing of a monitoring and feedback tool to stimulate physical activity

Introduction A monitoring and feedback tool to stimulate physical activity, consisting of an activity sensor, smartphone application (app), and website for patients and their practice nurses, has been developed: the ‘It’s LiFe!’ tool. In this study the usability of the tool was evaluated by technology experts and end users (people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or type 2 diabetes, with ages from 40–70 years), to improve the user interfaces and content of the tool. Patients and methods The study had four phases: 1) a heuristic evaluation with six technology experts; 2) a usability test in a laboratory by five patients; 3) a pilot in real life wherein 20 patients used the tool for 3 months; and 4) a final lab test by five patients. In both lab tests (phases 2 and 4) qualitative data were collected through a thinking-aloud procedure and video recordings, and quantitative data through questions about task complexity, text comprehensiveness, and readability. In addition, the post-study system usability questionnaire (PSSUQ) was completed for the app and the website. In the pilot test (phase 3), all patients were interviewed three times and the Software Usability Measurement Inventory (SUMI) was completed. Results After each phase, improvements were made, mainly to the layout and text. The main improvement was a refresh button for active data synchronization between activity sensor, app, and server, implemented after connectivity problems in the pilot test. The mean score on the PSSUQ for the website improved from 5.6 (standard deviation [SD] 1.3) to 6.5 (SD 0.5), and for the app from 5.4 (SD 1.5) to 6.2 (SD 1.1). Satisfaction in the pilot was not very high according to the SUMI. Discussion The use of laboratory versus real-life tests and expert-based versus user-based tests revealed a wide range of usability issues. The usability of the It’s LiFe! tool improved considerably during the study.

Experiences of Multidisciplinary Development Team Members During User-Centered Design of Telecare Products and Services: A Qualitative Study

Background User-centered design (UCD) methodologies can help take the needs and requirements of potential end-users into account during the development of innovative telecare products and services. Understanding how members of multidisciplinary development teams experience the UCD process might help to gain insight into factors that members with different backgrounds consider critical during the development of telecare products and services. Objective The primary objective of this study was to explore how members of multidisciplinary development teams experienced the UCD process of telecare products and services. The secondary objective was to identify differences and similarities in the barriers and facilitators they experienced. Methods Twenty-five members of multidisciplinary development teams of four Research and Development (R&D) projects participated in this study. The R&D projects aimed to develop telecare products and services that can support self-management in elderly people or patients with chronic conditions. Seven participants were representatives of end-users (elderly persons or patients with chronic conditions), three were professional end-users (geriatrician and nurses), five were engineers, four were managers (of R&D companies or engineering teams), and six were researchers. All participants were interviewed by a researcher who was not part of their own development team. The following topics were discussed during the interviews: (1) aim of the project, (2) role of the participant, (3) experiences during the development process, (4) points of improvement, and (5) what the project meant to the participant. Results Experiences of participants related to the following themes: (1) creating a development team, (2) expectations regarding responsibilities and roles, (3) translating user requirements into technical requirements, (4) technical challenges, (5) evaluation of developed products and services, and (6) valorization. Multidisciplinary team members from different backgrounds often reported similar experienced barriers (eg, different members of the development team speak a “different language”) and facilitators (eg, team members should voice expectations at the start of the project to prevent miscommunication at a later stage). However, some experienced barriers and facilitators were reported only by certain groups of participants. For example, only managers reported the experience that having different ideas about what a good business case is within one development team was a barrier, whereas only end-users emphasized the facilitating role of project management in end-user participation and the importance of continuous feedback from researchers on input of end-users. Conclusions Many similarities seem to exist between the experienced barriers and facilitators of members of multidisciplinary development teams during UCD of telecare products and services. However, differences in experiences between team members from various backgrounds exist as well. Insights into these similarities and differences can improve understanding between team members from different backgrounds, which can optimize collaboration during the development of telecare products and services.

Process evaluation of physical activity counselling with and without the use of mobile technology: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND A monitoring-and-feedback tool was developed to stimulate physical activity by giving feedback on physical activity performance to patients and practice nurses. The tool consists of an activity monitor (accelerometer), wirelessly connected to a Smartphone and a web application. Use of this tool is combined with a behaviour change counselling protocol (the Self-management Support Programme) based on the Five As model (Assess-Advise-Agree-Assist-Arrange). OBJECTIVES To examine the reach, implementation and satisfaction with the counselling protocol and the tool. DESIGN A process evaluation was conducted in two intervention groups of a three-armed cluster randomised controlled trial, in which the counselling protocol was evaluated with (group 1, n=65) and without (group 2, n=66) the use of the tool using a mixed methods design. SETTINGS Sixteen family practices in the South of the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS Practice nurses (n=20) and their associated physically inactive patients (n=131), diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Type 2 Diabetes, aged between 40 and 70 years old, and having access to a computer with an Internet connection. METHODS Semi structured interviews about the receipt of the intervention were conducted with the nurses and log files were kept regarding the consultations. After the intervention, questionnaires were presented to patients and nurses regarding compliance to and satisfaction with the interventions. Functioning and use of the tool were also evaluated by system and helpdesk logging. RESULTS Eighty-six percent of patients (group 1: n=57 and group 2: n=56) and 90% of nurses (group 1: n=10 and group 2: n=9) responded to the questionnaires. The execution of the Self-management Support Programme was adequate; in 83% (group 1: n=52, group 2: n=57) of the patients, the number and planning of the consultations were carried out as intended. Eighty-eight percent (n=50) of the patients in group 1 used the tool until the end of the intervention period. Technical problems occurred in 58% (n=33). Participants from group 1 were significantly more positive: patients: χ(2)(2, N=113)=11.17, p=0.004, and nurses: χ(2)(2, N=19)=6.37, p=0.040. Use of the tool led to greater awareness of the importance of physical activity, more discipline in carrying it out and more enjoyment. CONCLUSIONS The interventions were adequately executed and received as planned. Patients from both groups appreciated the focus on physical activity and personal attention given by the nurse. The most appreciated aspect of the combined intervention was the tool, although technical problems frequently occurred. Patients with the tool estimated more improvement of physical activity than patients without the tool.