↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Technologies for physical activity self-monitoring: a study of differences between users and non-users

Overview of attention for article published in Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Technologies for physical activity self-monitoring: a study of differences between users and non-users
Published in
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/oajsm.s124542
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Åkerberg, Anne Söderlund, Maria Lindén

Abstract

Different kinds of physical activity (PA) self-monitoring technologies are used today to monitor and motivate PA behavior change. The user focus is essential in the development process of this technology, including potential future users such as representatives from the group of non-users. There is also a need to study whether there are differences between the groups of users and non-users. The aims of this study were to investigate possible differences between users and non-users regarding their opinions about PA self-monitoring technologies and to investigate differences in demographic variables between the groups. Participants were randomly selected from seven municipalities in central Sweden. In total, 107 adults responded to the Physical Activity Products Questionnaire, which consisted of 22 questions. Significant differences between the users and non-users were shown for six of the 20 measurement-related items: measures accurately (p=0.007), measures with high precision (p=0.024), measures distance (p=0.020), measures speed (p=0.003), shows minutes of activity (p=0.004), and shows geographical position (p=0.000). Significant differences between the users and non-users were also found for two of the 29 encouragement items: measures accurately (p=0.001) and has long-term memory (p=0.019). Significant differences between the groups were also shown for level of education (p=0.030) and level of physical exercise (p=0.037). With a few exceptions, the users and the non-users in this study had similar opinions about PA self-monitoring technologies. Because this study showed significant differences regarding level of education and level of physical exercise, these demographic variables seemed more relevant to investigate than differences in opinions about the PA self-monitoring technologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 22%
Sports and Recreations 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,221,031
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#112
of 251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,763
of 426,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 426,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.