4.3 Article

Qualitative Exploration of the Acceptability of a Mobile Phone and Pedometer-Based Physical Activity Program in a Diverse Sample of Sedentary Women

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 232-240

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2011.00997.x

Keywords

health promotion; motivation; obesity; overweight; physical activity; prevention; qualitative research; women's health

Funding

  1. NIH/NCRR [NINR K23NR011454]
  2. UCSF-CTSI [UL1 RR024131]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 ones 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. Arandomized controlled trial of this intervention is warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available