Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
van der Weegen,; Verwey,Renée; Tange,Huibert; Spreeuwenberg,Marieke; de Witte,Luc (2014)
Publisher: Dove Press
Journal: Patient Preference and Adherence
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: accelerometry, telemonitoring, thinking aloud, R5-920, Medicine (General), Patient Preference and Adherence, Original Research, diabetes mellitus type 2, heuristic evaluation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Sanne van der Weegen,1 Renée Verwey,1,2 Huibert J Tange,3 Marieke D Spreeuwenberg,1 Luc P de Witte1,2 1Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands; 2Research Centre Technology in Care, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands; 3Department of General Practice, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands 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. Keywords: accelerometry, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, heuristic evaluation, telemonitoring, thinking aloud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Haapanen N, Miilunpalo S, Vuori I, Oja P, Pasanen M. Association of leisure time physical activity with the risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension and diabetes in middle-aged men and women. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26(4):739-747.
    • 2. Fentem PH. ABC of sports medicine. Benefits of exercise in health and disease. BMJ. 1994;308(6939):1291-1295.
    • 3. World Health Organisation. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. In: World Health Organisation, editor. WHO Press Switzerland. Geneva; 2010.
    • 4. Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, et al. Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2007;116(9):1081-1093.
    • 5. Schiller JS, Lucas JW, Ward BW, Peregoy JA. Summary health statistics for US adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2010. Vital Health Stat 10. 2012(252):1-207.
    • 6. Craig R, Mindell J, Hirani V. Health Survey for England 2008. Volume 1: Physical Activity and Fitness. London: NHS Information Centre; 2009.
    • 7. Hildebrandt VH, Bernaards CM, Stubbe JH. Trend Report Exercise and Health 2010/2011. TNO Quality of Life, Physical Activity and Health; 2013. Available from: http://www.webcitation.org/6MxYEo8d6. Accessed September 28, 2012.
    • 8. Lung Alliance the Netherlands. Zorgstandaard COPD [Care standard COPD]. Amersfoort: Long Alliantie Nederland [Host]; 2010. Dutch.
    • 9. Dutch Diabetes Federation. NDF Zorgstandaard: transparantie en kwaliteit van diabeteszorg voor mensen met diabetes type 2 [NDF Care Standard: Transparency and Quality Diabetes are for people with type 2 Diabetes]. Amersfoort: Nederlandse Diabetes Federatie; 2007.
    • 10. Baan D, Heijmans M. Mensen met COPD in beweging. Factsheet. 2012.
    • 11. Albright A, Franz M, Hornsby G, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Exercise and type 2 diabetes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(7):1345-1360.
    • 12. Carroll JK, Fiscella K, Epstein RM, et al. Physical activity counseling intervention at a federally qualified health center: improves autonomysupportiveness, but not patients' perceived competence. Patient Education and Counseling. 2013;92(3):432-436.
    • 13. Hebert ET, Caughy MO, Shuval K. Primary care providers' perceptions of physical activity counselling in a clinical setting: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(9):625-631.
    • 14. Bardsley M, Steventon A, Doll H. Impact of telehealth on general practice contacts: nfidings from the whole systems demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMC Health Services Research. 2013;13:395.
    • 15. Price M, Yuen EK, Goetter EM, et al. mHealth: a mechanism to deliver more accessible, more effective mental health care. Clin Psychol Psychother. Epub August 5, 2013.
    • 16. Esposito M, Ruberto M, Gimigliano F, et al. Effectiveness and safety of Nintendo Wii Fit Plus™ training in children with migraine without aura: a preliminary study. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2013;9:1803-1810.
    • 17. van der Weegen S, Verwey R, Spreeuwenberg M, Tange H, van der Weijden T, de Witte L. The Development of a Mobile Monitoring and Feedback Tool to Stimulate Physical Activity of People With a Chronic Disease in Primary Care: A User-Centered Design. JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth. 2013;1(2):e8.
    • 18. Shah SG, Robinson I. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):131-137.
    • 19. Jaspers MW. A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(5):340-353.
    • 20. The international organization for standardization. 9241-11. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 11: Guidance on Usability 1998.
    • 21. Frøkjaer E, Hertzum M, Hornbaek K. Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. April 1-6, 2000. The Hague, the Netherlands. ACM Press. New York, NY, USA. 2000.
    • 22. Nielsen J, Mack RL. Usability Inspection Methods. New York: Wiley; 1994.
    • 23. Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 1995;7(1):57-78.
    • 24. Verwey R, Weegen Svd, Spreeuwenberg M, Tange H, Weijden Tvd, Witte Ld. A pilot study of a tool to stimulate physical activity in patients with COPD or type 2 diabetes in primary care. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20(1):29-34.
    • 25. Kirakowski J, Corbett M. SUMI: the Software Usability Measurement Inventory. Br J Educ Technol. 1993;24(3):210-212.
    • 26. Kirakowski J. The Software Usability Measurement Inventory: Background and Usage. P Jordan, B Thomas, B Weerthmeester (Editors). Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Frances, London, UK.
    • 27. Benedek J, Miner T. Measuring Desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. Proceedings of Usability Professionals Association. July 8-12. Orlando 2002.
    • 28. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-1288.
    • 29. Waruru AK, Nduati R, Tylleskar T. Audio computer-assisted selfinterviewing (ACASI) may avert socially desirable responses about infant feeding in the context of HIV. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005;5:24.
    • 30. Luke N, Clark S, Zulu EM. The relationship history calendar: improving the scope and quality of data on youth sexual behavior. Demography. 2011;48(3):1151-1176.
    • 31. Sauro J. [serial on the internet] 9 Biases in Usability Testing. [updated August 21, 2012]. Available from: http://www.measuringusability.com/ blog/ut-bias.php. Accessed November 18, 2013.
    • 32. Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users. Evidence-Based User Experience Research, Training, and Consulting [serial on the internet]. Nielsen J; 2000 [updated March 19, 2000]. Available from: http:// www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/. Accessed November 18, 2013.
    • 33. Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the nfiding of usabil - ity problems. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; April 24-29, 1993. Amsterdam, the Netherlands. ACM Press. New York, NY, USA. 1993.
    • 34. Plasqui G, Bonomi AG, Westerterp KR. Daily physical activity assessment with accelerometers: new insights and validation studies. Obes Rev. 2013;14(6):451-462.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article