↓ Skip to main content

Usage, Acceptability, and Effectiveness of an Activity Tracker in a Randomized Trial of a Workplace Sitting Intervention: Mixed-Methods Evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Interact J Med Res, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 134)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Usage, Acceptability, and Effectiveness of an Activity Tracker in a Randomized Trial of a Workplace Sitting Intervention: Mixed-Methods Evaluation
Published in
Interact J Med Res, March 2018
DOI 10.2196/ijmr.9001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte L Brakenridge

Abstract

Wearable activity trackers are now a common feature of workplace wellness programs; however, their ability to impact sitting time (the behavior in which most of the desk-based workday is spent) is relatively unknown. This study evaluated the LUMOback, an activity tracker that targets sitting time, as part of a cluster-randomized workplace sitting intervention in desk-based office workers. Study objectives were to explore: (1) office workers' self-directed LUMOback use, (2) individual-level characteristics associated with LUMOback use, (3) the impact of LUMOback use on activity and sitting behaviors, and (4) office workers' perceived LUMOback acceptability. Exploratory analyses were conducted within the activity tracker intervention group (n=66) of a 2-arm cluster-randomized trial (n=153) with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. The intervention, delivered from within the workplace, consisted of organizational support strategies (eg, manager support, emails) to stand up, sit less, and move more, plus the provision of a LUMOback activity tracker. The LUMOback, worn belted around the waist, provides real-time sitting feedback through a mobile app. LUMOback usage data (n=62), Web-based questionnaires (n=33), activPAL-assessed sitting, prolonged (≥30 min bouts) and nonprolonged (<30 min bouts) sitting, standing and stepping time (7-day, 24 h/day protocol; n=40), and telephone interviews (n=27) were used to evaluate study aims. LUMOback usage data were downloaded and described. Associations between user characteristics and LUMOback usage (in the first 3 months) were analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial models. Associations between LUMOback usage and 3-month activity outcomes were analyzed using mixed models, correcting for cluster. LUMOback acceptability was explored using 3-month questionnaire data and thematic analysis of telephone interviews (conducted 6 to 10 months post intervention commencement). Tracker uptake was modest (43/61, 70%), and among users, usage over the first 3 months was low (1-48 days, median 8). Usage was greatest among team leaders and those with low self-perceived scores for job control and supervisor relationships. Greater tracker use (≥5 days vs <5 days) was significantly associated only with changes in prolonged unbroken sitting (-50.7 min/16 h; 95% CI -94.0 to -7.3; P=.02) during all waking hours, and changes in nonprolonged sitting (+32.5 min/10 h; 95% CI 5.0 to 59.9; P=.02) during work hours. Participants found the LUMOback easy to use but only somewhat comfortable. Qualitatively, participants valued the real-time app feedback. Nonuptake was attributed to being busy and setup issues. Low usage was attributed to discomfort wearing the LUMOback. The LUMOback-although able to reduce prolonged sitting time-was only used to a limited extent, and its low usage may provide a partial explanation for the limited behavior changes that occurred. Discomfort limited the feasibility of the LUMOback for ongoing use. Such findings yield insight into how to improve upon implementing activity trackers in workplace settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 26%
Student > Master 7 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 9 33%
Psychology 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,222,038
of 11,700,978 outputs
Outputs from Interact J Med Res
#18
of 134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,155
of 268,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Interact J Med Res
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,700,978 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 268,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them