↓ Skip to main content

Adapting a weight management tool for Latina women: a usability study of the Veteran Health Administration’s MOVE!23 tool

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adapting a weight management tool for Latina women: a usability study of the Veteran Health Administration’s MOVE!23 tool
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0368-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hector R. Perez, Michael W. Nick, Katrina F. Mateo, Allison Squires, Scott E. Sherman, Adina Kalet, Melanie Jay

Abstract

Obesity disproportionately affects Latina women, but few targeted, technology-assisted interventions that incorporate tailored health information exist for this population. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) uses an online weight management tool (MOVE!23) which is publicly available, but was not designed for use in non-VHA populations. We conducted a qualitative study to determine how interactions between the tool and other contextual elements impacted task performance when the target Latina users interacted with MOVE!23. We sought to identify and classify specific facilitators and barriers that might inform design changes to the tool and its context of use, and in turn promote usability. Six English-speaking, adult Latinas were recruited from an inner city primary care clinic and a nursing program at a local university in the United States to engage in a "Think-Aloud" protocol while using MOVE!23. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify interactions between four factors that contribute to usability (Tool, Task, User, Context). Five themes influencing usability were identified: Technical Ability and Technology Preferences; Language Confusion and Ambiguity; Supportive Tool Design and Facilitator Guidance; Relevant Examples; and Personal Experience. Features of the tool, task, and other contextual factors failed to fully support participants at times, impeding task completion. Participants interacted with the tool more readily when its language was familiar and content was personally relevant. When faced with ambiguity and uncertainty, they relied on the tool's visual cues and examples, actively sought relevant personal experiences, and/or requested facilitator support. The ability of our participants to successfully use the tool was influenced by the interaction of individual characteristics with those of the tool and other contextual factors. We identified both tool-specific and context-related changes that could overcome barriers to the use of MOVE!23 among Latinas. Several general considerations for the design of eHealth tools are noted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 23%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Psychology 7 8%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 29 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,393,913
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,316
of 1,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,416
of 319,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#23
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,997 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.