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. Wynen, Jan & Boon, Jan & Kleizen, Bjorn & Verhoest, Koen, 2020. "How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior : Evidence from the Australian Public Service," Other publications TiSEM 4f721d76-0c44-4d72-a494-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Shoo Thien Lee & Jyh Eiin Wong & Geraldine K. L. Chan & Bee Koon Poh, 2021. "Association between Compliance with Movement Behavior Guidelines and Obesity among Malaysian Preschoolers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING, 2022. "Conclusions and Directions for further Research," CIRIEC Studies Series, in: Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING & CIRIEC (ed.), New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods, volume 3, chapter 0, pages 259-274, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    5. 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.
    6. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public Service Innovation Networks (PSINs): Collaborating for Innovation and Value Creation," Working Papers halshs-01934275, HAL.
    7. Filippetti, Andrea & Vezzani, Antonio, 2022. "The political economy of public research, or why some governments commit to research more than others," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Mario Kasović & Lovro Štefan & Pavel Piler & Martin Zvonar, 2022. "Tracking of Maternal Physical Activity and Sport Participation over 11 Years: Findings from the Czech ELSPAC Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-9, January.
    10. Vassallo, Jarrod P. & Banerjee, Sourindra & Zaman, Hasanuzzaman & Prabhu, Jaideep C., 2023. "Design thinking and public sector innovation: The divergent effects of risk-taking, cognitive empathy and emotional empathy on individual performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    11. Tânia Martins & Alexandra Braga & Marisa R. Ferreira & Vítor Braga, 2022. "Diving into Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Pwint Kay Khine & Jianing Mi & Raza Shahid, 2021. "A Comparative Analysis of Co-Production in Public Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Roberto Vivona & Mehmet Akif Demircioglu & David B. Audretsch, 2023. "The costs of collaborative innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 873-899, June.
    15. Alessandro Piperno & Christian Iaione & Luna Kappler, 2023. "Institutional Collective Actions for Culture and Heritage-Led Urban Regeneration: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public service innovation networks (PSINs): an instrument for collaborative innovation and value co-creation in public service(s)," Working Papers halshs-01934284, HAL.
    17. Tan, Wee-Liang & Zuckermann, Ghil'ad, 2021. "External impetus, co-production and grassroots innovations: The case of an innovation involving a language," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    18. Juliet Carpenter & Christina Horvath & Ben Spencer, 2021. "Co-Creation as an agonistic practice in the favela of Santa Marta, Rio de Janeiro," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(9), pages 1906-1923, July.
    19. Ratten, Vanessa & da Silva Braga, Vitor Lélio & da Encarnação Marques, Carla Susana, 2021. "Sport entrepreneurship and value co-creation in times of crisis: The covid-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 265-274.
    20. Cinar, Emre & Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif & Acik, Ahmet Coskun & Simms, Chris, 2024. "Public sector innovation in a city state: exploring innovation types and national context in Singapore," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).

    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.