ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Few patient engagement tools incorporate the complex patient experiences, contexts, and workflows that limit depression treatment implementation. OBJECTIVE: Describe a user-centered design (UCD) process for operationalizing a preference-driven patient activation tool. DESIGN: Informed by UCD and behavior change/implementation science principles, we designed a preference-driven patient activation prototype for engaging patients in depression treatment. We conducted three usability cycles using different recruitment/implementation approaches: near live/live testing in primary care waiting rooms (V1-2) and lab-based think aloud testing (V3) oversampling older, low-literacy, and Spanish-speaking patients in the community and via EHR algorithms. We elicited clinician and "heuristic" expert input. MAIN MEASURES: We administered the system usability scale (SUS) all three cycles and pre-post V3, the patient activation measure, decisional conflict scale, and depression treatment barriers. We employed descriptive statistics and thematically analyzed observer notes and transcripts for usability constructs. RESULTS: Overall, 43 patients, 3 clinicians, and 5 heuristic (a usability engineering method for identifying usability problems) experts participated. Among patients, 41.9% were ≥ 65 years old, 79.1% female, 23.3% Black, 62.8% Hispanic, and 55.8% Spanish-speaking and 46.5% had ≤ high school education. We described V1-3 usability (67.2, 77.3, 81.8), treatment seeking (92.3%, 87.5%, 92.9%), likelihood/comfort discussing with clinician (76.9%, 87.5%, 100.0%), and pre vs. post decisional conflict (23.7 vs. 15.2), treatment awareness (71.4% vs. 92.9%), interest in antidepressants (7.1% vs. 14.3%), and patient activation (66.8 vs. 70.9), with fewer barriers pertaining to cost/insurance, access/coordination, and self-efficacy/stigma/treatment efficacy. Key themes included digital literacy, understandability, high acceptability for aesthetics, high usefulness of patient/clinician videos, and workflow limitations. We adapted manual entry/visibility/content; added patient activation and a personalized algorithm; and proposed flexible, care manager delivery leveraging clinic screening protocols. DISCUSSION: We provide an example of leveraging UCD to design/adapt a real-world, patient experience and workflow-aligned patient activation tool in diverse populations.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Sedentary time is ubiquitous in developed nations and is associated with deleterious health outcomes. Physical activity guidelines recommend reductions in sedentary time; however, quantitative guidelines that inform how often and how long sedentary time should be interrupted have not been provided. The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of multiple doses of a sedentary break intervention on cardiometabolic risk factors, concurrently evaluating efficacy of varying frequencies and durations of sedentary breaks. METHODS: In a randomized crossover study, middle- and older-age adults ( n = 11) completed the following 8-h conditions on five separate days: 1 uninterrupted sedentary (control) condition and four acute (experimental) trials that entailed different sedentary break frequency/duration combinations: every 30 min for 1 min, every 30 min for 5 min, every 60 min for 1 min, and every 60 min for 5 min. Sedentary breaks entailed light-intensity walking. Glucose and blood pressure (BP) were measured every 15 and 60 min, respectively. RESULTS: Compared with control, glucose incremental area under the curve was significantly attenuated only for the every 30 min for 5-min dose (-11.8[4.7]; P = 0.017). All sedentary break doses yielded significant net decreases in systolic BP from baseline compared with control ( P < 0.05). The largest reductions in systolic BP were observed for the every 60 min for 1 min (-5.2 [1.4] mm Hg) and every 30 min for 5 min (-4.3[1.4] mm Hg) doses. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides important information concerning efficacious sedentary break doses. Higher-frequency and longer-duration breaks (every 30 min for 5 min) should be considered when targeting glycemic responses, whereas lower doses may be sufficient for BP lowering.
