It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Objectives
Activity trackers hold the promise to support people in managing their health through quantified measurements about their daily physical activities. Monitoring personal health with quantified activity tracker-generated data provides patients with an opportunity to self-manage their health. Many have been conducted within short-time frames; makes it difficult to discover the impact of the activity tracker’s novelty effect or the reasons for the device’s long-term use. This study explores the impact of novelty effect on activity tracker adoption and the motivation for sustained use beyond the novelty period.
Materials and methods
This study uses a mixed-methods approach that combines both quantitative activity tracker log analysis and qualitative one-on-one interviews to develop a deeper behavioral understanding of 23 Fitbit device users who used their trackers for at least 2 months (range of use = 69–1073 days).
Results
Log data from users’ Fitbit devices revealed 2 stages: the novelty period and the long-term use period. The novelty period for Fitbit users in this study was approximately 3 months, during which they might have discontinued using their devices.
Discussion
The qualitative interview data identified various factors that users to continuously use the Fitbit devices in different stages. The discussion of these results provides design implications to guide future development of activity tracking technology.
Conclusion
This study reveals important dynamics emerging over long-term activity tracker use, contributes new knowledge to consumer health informatics and human-computer interaction, and offers design implications to guide future development of similar health-monitoring technologies that better account for long-term use in support of patient care and health self-management.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
2 Institute for Software Research School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA