4.2 Article

Adherence with physical activity monitoring wearable devices in a community-based population: observations from the Washington, DC, Cardiovascular Health and Needs Assessment

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 719-730

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s13142-016-0454-0

关键词

mHealth technology; Physical activity; Community-based participatory research; Obesity; African-American; Activitymonitoring

资金

  1. Division of Intramural Research of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  2. Division of Intramural Research of NHLBI at NIH [HHSN268201300173P]
  3. Office of Intramural Training and Education of the NIH
  4. Clinical Center, NIH
  5. Division of Intramural Research of NHLBI at NIH
  6. [HL006168]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wearable mobile health (mHealth) technologies offer approaches for targeting physical activity (PA) in resourcelimited, community-based interventions. We sought to explore user characteristics of PA tracking, wearable technology among a community-based population within a health and needs assessment. In 2014-2015, we conducted the Washington, D.C., Cardiovascular Health and Needs Assessment in predominantly African-American churches among communities with higher obesity rates and lower household incomes. Participants received a mHealth PA monitor and wirelessly uploaded PA data weekly to church data collection hubs. Participants (n = 99) were 59 +/- 12 years, 79% female, and 99% African-American, with amean bodymass index of 33 +/- 7 kg/m(2). Eighty-onepercent of participants uploaded PA data to the hub andwere termed PA device users. Though PA device users were more likely to report lower household incomes, no differences existed between device users and non-users for device ownership or technology fluency. Findings suggest that mHealth systems with awearable device and data collection hubmay feasibly target PA in resource-limited communities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据