Yoshimi Fukuoka1, Teri Lindgren, Soson Jong. 1. Institute for Health and Aging/Department of Social Behavioral Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. Yoshimi.fukuoka@ucsf.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper were to explore the acceptability of components of a mobile phone/pedometer-based physical activity program and to understand motivators and barriers to increase physical activity in a diverse sample of sedentary women. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted following a 3-week pilot mobile phone/pedometer-based physical activity intervention. Forty-one sedentary women participated in the study. MEASURES: Subjects were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. A qualitative description method was used to thematically analyze the interviews. Two investigators reviewed the transcripts independently and identified codes based on the main concerns in the interview questions. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from qualitative data shedding light on the perceived acceptability and usefulness of a mobile phone/pedometer-based intervention: (1) Monitor me: mobile phone/pedometer as self-monitoring tools, (2) Motivate me: cycle of feedback in goal setting and usefulness/uselessness of daily random messages, (3) Mobilize me: engaging and adapting physical activity to fit one's own lifestyle. CONCLUSION: Mobile phone and pedometer-based physical activity programs might be helpful in keeping sedentary women engaged and motivated to increase their physical activity. A randomized controlled trial of this intervention is warranted.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper were to explore the acceptability of components of a mobile phone/pedometer-based physical activity program and to understand motivators and barriers to increase physical activity in a diverse sample of sedentary women. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted following a 3-week pilot mobile phone/pedometer-based physical activity intervention. Forty-one sedentary women participated in the study. MEASURES: Subjects were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. A qualitative description method was used to thematically analyze the interviews. Two investigators reviewed the transcripts independently and identified codes based on the main concerns in the interview questions. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from qualitative data shedding light on the perceived acceptability and usefulness of a mobile phone/pedometer-based intervention: (1) Monitor me: mobile phone/pedometer as self-monitoring tools, (2) Motivate me: cycle of feedback in goal setting and usefulness/uselessness of daily random messages, (3) Mobilize me: engaging and adapting physical activity to fit one's own lifestyle. CONCLUSION: Mobile phone and pedometer-based physical activity programs might be helpful in keeping sedentary women engaged and motivated to increase their physical activity. A randomized controlled trial of this intervention is warranted.
Authors: Dan Ding; Hsin-Yi Liu; Rosemarie Cooper; Rory A Cooper; Asim Smailagic; Dan Siewiorek Journal: Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.784
Authors: Ruth E Taylor-Piliae; Joan M Fair; William L Haskell; Ann N Varady; Carlos Iribarren; Mark A Hlatky; Alan S Go; Stephen P Fortmann Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2010-01
Authors: Gregory J Norman; Marion F Zabinski; Marc A Adams; Dori E Rosenberg; Amy L Yaroch; Audie A Atienza Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Judit Bort-Roig; Nicholas D Gilson; Anna Puig-Ribera; Ruth S Contreras; Stewart G Trost Journal: Sports Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Yoshimi Fukuoka; Judith Komatsu; Larry Suarez; Eric Vittinghoff; William Haskell; Tina Noorishad; Kristin Pham Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Leanne G Morrison; Charlie Hargood; Sharon Xiaowen Lin; Laura Dennison; Judith Joseph; Stephanie Hughes; Danius T Michaelides; Derek Johnston; Marie Johnston; Susan Michie; Paul Little; Peter Wf Smith; Mark J Weal; Lucy Yardley Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Kacie Ca Blackman; Jamie Zoellner; Leanna M Berrey; Ramine Alexander; Jason Fanning; Jennie L Hill; Paul A Estabrooks Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Judit Bort-Roig; Montserrat Martin; Anna Puig-Ribera; Ángel Manuel González-Suárez; Iván Martínez-Lemos; Joan Carles Martori; Nicholas D Gilson Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Shirley S M Fong; Shamay S M Ng; Yoyo T Y Cheng; Joni Zhang; Louisa M Y Chung; Gary C C Chow; Yvonne T C Chak; Ivy K Y Chan; Duncan J Macfarlane Journal: J Phys Ther Sci Date: 2016-05-31
Authors: Sheridan W Miyamoto; Stuart Henderson; Heather M Young; Amit Pande; Jay J Han Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Inbal Nahum-Shani; Shawna N Smith; Bonnie J Spring; Linda M Collins; Katie Witkiewitz; Ambuj Tewari; Susan A Murphy Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2018-05-18