Danielle Symons Downs1,2, Joshua M Smyth3, Kristin E Heron4, Mark E Feinberg5, Marianne Hillemeier6, Frank T Materia3. 1. Exercise Psychology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, Penn State University. 2. Department of OBGYN, Penn State College of Medicine. 3. Department of Biobehavioral Health, Penn State University. 4. Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University. 5. Prevention Center Research, Penn State University. 6. Department of Health Policy and Administration, Penn State University.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increased interest in developing mobile technology-based interventions, little research has examined preferences and beliefs about using smartphones for psychosocial or health behavior change interventions, particularly among women with overweight/obesity residing in rural communities. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to examine the beliefs of pre- and interconceptional women about using smartphones and to examine the extent to which women's preferences for using smartphones changed as a result of participating in study interviews. METHODS: Forty women (M age = 28.2 years; M BMI = 31.4; 50% obese) participated in one-time 90 minute interviews and completed questionnaires before and after the interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the frequency of women's preferences for using smartphones and applications. Interviews were downloaded and transcribed; principles of thematic analysis were used to code the interviews and identify themes. RESULTS: Women identified advantages of using smartphones for behavioral interventions, including being convenient, useful, and able to provide social support. Primary disadvantages were annoyances and needing technology support for phone problems. Participating in interviews also resulted in significant improvements in participant willingness to use smartphones in health behavior change interventions. DISCUSSION: The study findings highlight the importance of understanding beliefs about using smartphones before designing effective smartphone-based interventions, especially for use with pre- and interconceptional women with overweight/obesity who may have unique challenges with study adherence. These findings also suggest beliefs about smartphone utility can be improved over the course of a brief interview that taps into technology-related preferences. CONCLUSION: Identifying advantages/disadvantages of smartphone use can inform intervention design. Future research should explore how to capitalize on strategies that enable the benefits of technology (e.g., convenience, social support) while minimizing participant barriers (e.g., distractions) to promote behavior change and facilitate intervention compliance.
BACKGROUND: Despite increased interest in developing mobile technology-based interventions, little research has examined preferences and beliefs about using smartphones for psychosocial or health behavior change interventions, particularly among women with overweight/obesity residing in rural communities. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to examine the beliefs of pre- and interconceptional women about using smartphones and to examine the extent to which women's preferences for using smartphones changed as a result of participating in study interviews. METHODS: Forty women (M age = 28.2 years; M BMI = 31.4; 50% obese) participated in one-time 90 minute interviews and completed questionnaires before and after the interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the frequency of women's preferences for using smartphones and applications. Interviews were downloaded and transcribed; principles of thematic analysis were used to code the interviews and identify themes. RESULTS: Women identified advantages of using smartphones for behavioral interventions, including being convenient, useful, and able to provide social support. Primary disadvantages were annoyances and needing technology support for phone problems. Participating in interviews also resulted in significant improvements in participant willingness to use smartphones in health behavior change interventions. DISCUSSION: The study findings highlight the importance of understanding beliefs about using smartphones before designing effective smartphone-based interventions, especially for use with pre- and interconceptional women with overweight/obesity who may have unique challenges with study adherence. These findings also suggest beliefs about smartphone utility can be improved over the course of a brief interview that taps into technology-related preferences. CONCLUSION: Identifying advantages/disadvantages of smartphone use can inform intervention design. Future research should explore how to capitalize on strategies that enable the benefits of technology (e.g., convenience, social support) while minimizing participant barriers (e.g., distractions) to promote behavior change and facilitate intervention compliance.
Entities:
Keywords:
intervention; mobile phone technology; preconception
Authors: Sevilay Temel; Sabine F van Voorst; Brian W Jack; Semiha Denktaş; Eric A P Steegers Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Jane E Hirst; Lucy Mackillop; Lise Loerup; Dev A Kevat; Katy Bartlett; Oliver Gibson; Yvonne Kenworthy; Jonathan C Levy; Lionel Tarassenko; Andrew Farmer Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2014-10-30
Authors: Dustin T Dunsmuir; Beth A Payne; Garth Cloete; Christian Leth Petersen; Matthias Görges; Joanne Lim; Peter von Dadelszen; Guy A Dumont; J Mark Ansermino Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: Brenda Robles; Stephanie Frost; Lucas Moore; Carole V Harris; Andrew S Bradlyn; Tony Kuo Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Susan K Riesch; Emmanuel M Ngui; Carey Ehlert; M Katie Miller; Christine A Cronk; Steven Leuthner; Mary Strehlow; Jeanne B Hewitt; Maureen S Durkin Journal: Public Health Nurs Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 1.462
Authors: Jane Catherine Willcox; Karen Jane Campbell; Elizabeth Anne McCarthy; Shelley Ann Wilkinson; Martha Lappas; Kylie Ball; Brianna Fjeldsoe; Anne Griffiths; Robyn Whittaker; Ralph Maddison; Alexis Shub; Deborah Pidd; Elise Fraser; Nelly Moshonas; David Andrew Crawford Journal: Trials Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Melissa D Olfert; Makenzie L Barr; Rebecca L Hagedorn; Dustin M Long; Treah S Haggerty; Mathew Weimer; Joseph Golden; Mary Ann Maurer; Jill D Cochran; Tracy Hendershot; Stacey L Whanger; Jay D Mason; Sally L Hodder Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2019-11-20