Darcy Ummels

(Re)design of a user ‐ friendly interface andevaluation of experiences in daily life | 77 4 Check ‐ up calls Two days after the first appointment, a researcher called the participant to check if they had installed the app. The researcher pointed out again, that participants could obtain support through the helpdesk if they encountered problems. After ten days the researcher called the second time to ask if participants had synchronized the activity tracker with the application in the last 2 weeks. If not, they were asked to do so. Second personal visit At the end of the 2 weeks testing period, a second personal visit was scheduled during which the researcher asked whether (1) the participant had received the number of the helpdesk and the user manual, (2) whether the participant had had two check ‐ up calls and (3) how many times the participant had called the helpdesk. The step count and active minutes per day according to the MISS activity app were recorded. Furthermore, one questionnaire was filled out in which the satisfaction with the MISS activity and the effect of their physical activity was queried (Appendix 4.2). Semi ‐ structured interviews with all participants about their experiences with the MISS activity were performed. The interview guide was based on a framework of a previous study 10 , with the following main categories: purchase, instruction, characteristics, correct functioning, sharing data, privacy, use of the activity tracker, and interest in feedback. The interview lasted between 15 ‐ 30 min and was recorded on audio. Data analysis Descriptive statistics of the participants ’ characteristics and questionnaires were presented as absolute numbers with medians (range). The interviews were transcribed verbatim. To analyze the interviews deductive and inductive content analysis 37 was used, using NVivo (version 10). The framework 10 of the interview guide was used for the deductive content analysis. Inductive coding was used when a text passage, that was relevant for the research question, did not fit the framework. Therefore, an “ other ” code was used to include these text passages. The first interview and every fifth interview was coded by two reviewers and an alignment session was held to fine ‐ tune the coding. Differences in interpretation were solved by dialogue to reach consensus.