IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i6p3472-d771745.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Families’ Acceptance of Wearable Activity Trackers: A Mixed-Methods Study

Author

Listed:
  • Amy V. Creaser

    (School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
    Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK)

  • Jennifer Hall

    (Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK)

  • Silvia Costa

    (School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK)

  • Daniel D. Bingham

    (Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK)

  • Stacy A. Clemes

    (School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, University of Leicester, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK)

Abstract

Background: The family environment plays a crucial role in child physical activity (PA). Wearable activity trackers (wearables) show potential for increasing children’s PA; however, few studies have explored families’ acceptance of wearables. This study investigated the acceptability of using wearables in a family setting, aligning experiences with components of the Technology Acceptance Model and Theoretical Domains Framework. Methods: Twenty-four families, with children aged 5–9 years, took part in a 5-week study, where all members were provided with a Fitbit Alta HR for 4 weeks. Acceptability was measured using weekly surveys and pre-post-questionnaires. Nineteen families participated in a focus group. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using the Pillar Integration Process technique. Results: Pillars reflected (1) external variables impacting wearable use and PA and (2) wearable use, (3) ease of use, (4) usefulness for increasing PA and other health outcomes, (5) attitudes, and (6) intention to use a wearable, including future intervention suggestions. Conclusions: Families found the Fitbit easy to use and acceptable, but use varied, and perceived impact on PA were mixed, with external variables contributing towards this. This study provides insights into how wearables may be integrated into family-based PA interventions and highlights barriers and facilitators of family wearable use.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy V. Creaser & Jennifer Hall & Silvia Costa & Daniel D. Bingham & Stacy A. Clemes, 2022. "Exploring Families’ Acceptance of Wearable Activity Trackers: A Mixed-Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-36, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:6:p:3472-:d:771745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/6/3472/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/6/3472/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephanie Schoeppe & Jo Salmon & Susan L. Williams & Deborah Power & Stephanie Alley & Amanda L. Rebar & Melanie Hayman & Mitch J. Duncan & Corneel Vandelanotte, 2020. "Effects of an Activity Tracker and App Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Whole Families—The Step It Up Family Feasibility Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Jorge A Banda & K Farish Haydel & Tania Davila & Manisha Desai & Susan Bryson & William L Haskell & Donna Matheson & Thomas N Robinson, 2016. "Effects of Varying Epoch Lengths, Wear Time Algorithms, and Activity Cut-Points on Estimates of Child Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity from Accelerometer Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Johannesson Magnus & Östling Robert & Ranehill Eva, 2010. "The Effect of Competition on Physical Activity: A Randomized Trial," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-31, September.
    4. Amy V. Creaser & Stacy A. Clemes & Silvia Costa & Jennifer Hall & Nicola D. Ridgers & Sally E. Barber & Daniel D. Bingham, 2021. "The Acceptability, Feasibility, and Effectiveness of Wearable Activity Trackers for Increasing Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-28, June.
    5. W. H. Voorberg & V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1357, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simona Hvalič-Touzery & Mojca Šetinc & Vesna Dolničar, 2022. "Benefits of a Wearable Activity Tracker with Safety Features for Older Adults: An Intervention Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-26, November.
    2. Stephanie Schoeppe & Kim Waters & Jo Salmon & Susan L. Williams & Deborah Power & Stephanie Alley & Amanda L. Rebar & Melanie Hayman & Mitch J. Duncan & Corneel Vandelanotte, 2023. "Experience and Satisfaction with a Family-Based Physical Activity Intervention Using Activity Trackers and Apps: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Amy V. Creaser & Marie T. Frazer & Silvia Costa & Daniel D. Bingham & Stacy A. Clemes, 2022. "The Use of Wearable Activity Trackers in Schools to Promote Child and Adolescent Physical Activity: A Descriptive Content Analysis of School Staff’s Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-17, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Joachim Bachner & David J. Sturm & Yolanda Demetriou, 2020. "Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Levels and Patterns in Female Sixth Graders: The CReActivity Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public Service Innovation Networks (PSINs): Collaborating for Innovation and Value Creation," Working Papers halshs-01934275, HAL.
    4. Anne Seneca Terkelsen & Christian Tolstrup Wester & Gabriel Gulis & Jørgen Jespersen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen, 2022. "Co-Creation and Co-Production of Health Promoting Activities Addressing Older People—A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    5. Manuel Alméstar & Sara Romero-Muñoz & Nieves Mestre & Uriel Fogué & Eva Gil & Amanda Masha, 2023. "(Un)Likely Connections between (Un)Likely Actors in the Art/NBS Co-Creation Process: Application of KREBS Cycle of Creativity to the Cyborg Garden Project," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-25, May.
    6. Agnieszka Izabela Baruk & Mateusz Grzesiak, 2020. "Cooperation between Final Purchasers and Offerors in the Online and Offline Environments vs. the Benefits Derived by Active Purchasers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Margaret von Faber & Zsuzsu Tavy & Suzan van der Pas, 2020. "Engaging Older People in Age-Friendly Cities through Participatory Video Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Abdulaziz Aldegheishem, 2024. "Assessing progress towards smart governance in Saudi Arabia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Fatuma Namisango & Kyeong Kang & Ghassan Beydoun, 2022. "How the Structures Provided by Social Media Enable Collaborative Outcomes: A Study of Service Co-creation in Nonprofits," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 517-535, April.
    10. Oluwasoye P. Mafimisebi & Adekunle I. Ogunsade, 2022. "Unlocking a Continent of Opportunity: Entrepreneurship and Digital Ecosystems for Value Creation in Africa," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 11(1), pages 11-22, March.
    11. Ricard Esparza-Masana, 2022. "Towards Smart Specialisation 2.0. Main Challenges When Updating Strategies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 635-655, March.
    12. Bradbury-Jones, Caroline & Isham, Louise & Taylor, Julie, 2018. "The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: A qualitative systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 80-91.
    13. Aurelio Tommasetti & Riccardo Mussari & Gennaro Maione & Daniela Sorrentino, 2020. "Sustainability Accounting and Reporting in the Public Sector: Towards Public Value Co-Creation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Floriana Fusco & Marta Marsilio & Chiara Guglielmetti, 2018. "La co-production in sanit?: un?analisi bibliometrica," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(108), pages 35-54.
    15. Fatima, Samar & Desouza, Kevin C. & Dawson, Gregory S., 2020. "National strategic artificial intelligence plans: A multi-dimensional analysis," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 178-194.
    16. Bokyong Shin & Mikko Rask, 2021. "Assessment of Online Deliberative Quality: New Indicators Using Network Analysis and Time-Series Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Nathalie Colasanti & Chiara Fantauzzi & Rocco Frondizi, 2021. "Innovating Public Service Delivery Through Crowdsourcing: What Role for The Third Sector and Civil Society?," International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Computer Science Journals (CSC Journals), vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, February.
    18. Magdalena Potz & Solange Hernandez & Sarah Serval, 2024. "From Wicked Problems to the Wickedization of Solutions: The Case of the French Citizens Convention for Climate," Post-Print hal-04714400, HAL.
    19. Hyungjun Seo & Seunghwan Myeong, 2021. "Determinant Factors for Adoption of Government as a Platform in South Korea: Mediating Effects on the Perception of Intelligent Information Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-20, September.
    20. Noella Edelmann & Ines Mergel, 2021. "Co-Production of Digital Public Services in Austrian Public Administrations," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:6:p:3472-:d:771745. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.