Beliefs About Using Smartphones for Health Behavior Change: an Elicitation Study with Overweight and Obese Rural Women

  • Danielle Symons DownsEmail author
  • Joshua M. Smyth
  • Kristin E. Heron
  • Mark E. Feinberg
  • Marianne Hillemeier
  • Frank T. Materia


Despite increased interest in developing mobile technology-based interventions, little research has examined preferences and beliefs about using smartphones for psychosocial or health behavior change interventions, particularly among women with overweight/obesity residing in rural communities. The aims of this study were to examine the beliefs of pre- and inter-conceptional women about using smartphones and to examine the extent to which women’s preferences for using smartphones changed as a result of participating in study interviews. Forty women (M age = 28.2 years; M BMI = 31.4; 50% obese) participated in one-time 90-min interviews and completed questionnaires before and after the interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the frequency of women’s preferences for using smartphones and applications. Interviews were downloaded and transcribed; principles of thematic analysis were used to code the interviews and identify themes. Women identified advantages of using smartphones for behavioral interventions, including being convenient, useful, and able to provide social support. Primary disadvantages were annoyances and needing technology support for phone problems. Participating in interviews also resulted in significant improvements in participant willingness to use smartphones in health behavior change interventions. The study findings highlight the importance of understanding beliefs about using smartphones before designing effective smartphone-based interventions, especially for use with pre- and inter-conceptional women with overweight/obesity who may have unique challenges with study adherence. These findings also suggest beliefs about smartphone utility can be improved over the course of a brief interview that taps into technology-related preferences. Identifying advantages/disadvantages of smartphone use can inform intervention design. Future research should explore how to capitalize on strategies that enable the benefits of technology (e.g., convenience, social support) while minimizing participant barriers (e.g., distractions) to promote behavior change and facilitate intervention compliance.


Preconception Intervention Mobile phone technology 



We would like to thank the contributions of Franny Wales and the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania in assisting with data collecteion for this project.

Funding Information

This project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant UL1 TR002014. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Funding to support the first author in preparing this work was also provided by the National Heart, Lung,and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health through grant R01HL119245-01.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the participating University. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.


  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coughlin, S. S., Whitehead, M., Sheats, J. Q., Mastromonico, J., Hardy, D., & Smith, S. A. (2015). Smartphone applications for promoting healthy diet and nutrition: a literature review. Jacobs Journal of Food and Nutrition, 2, 21–35.Google Scholar
  3. Derbyshire, E., & Dancey, D. (2013). Smartphone medical applications for women’s health: what is the evidence base and feedback? International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, 2013, 1–10. Scholar
  4. Dunsmuir, D. T., Payne, B. A., Cloete, G., Petersen, C. L., Gorges, M., Lim, J., et al. (2014). Development of mHealth applications for pre-eclampsia triage. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 18, 1857–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fanning, J., Mullen, S. P., & McAuley, E. (2012). Increasing physical activity with mobile devices: a meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14, e161. Scholar
  6. Green, J., & Browne, J. (2005). Analysing qualitative data. In N. Black, R. Raine, J. Green, & Browne (Eds.), Principles of social research (pp. 79–80). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2005). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation. Field Methods, 18, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirst, J. E., Mackillop, L., Loerup, L., Kevat, D. A., Bartlett, K., Gibson, O., Kenworthy, Y., Levy, J. C., Tarassenko, L., & Farmer, A. (2015). Acceptability and user satisfaction of a smartphone-based, interactive blood glucose management system in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 9, 111–115. Scholar
  9. Institute of Medicine. (2009). Weight gain during pregnancy: Reexamining the guidelines. In K. M. Rasmussen & A. L. Yaktine (Eds.), Committee to reexamine IOM pregnancy weight guidelines. Institute of Medicine, National Research Council Accessed on 20 June 2016 at:
  10. Kaar, J. L., Markovic, N., Amsden, L. B., Gilliland, J., Shorter, C. F., Peters, B., & Dabelea, D. (2016). The experience of direct outreach recruitment in the National Children’s Study. Pediatrics, 137(S4), 258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lindvall, K., Jenkins, P., Scribani, M., Emmelin, M., Larsson, C., Norberg, M., et al. (2015). Comparisons of weight change, eating habits, and physical activity between women in northern Sweden and rural New York State: results from a longitudinal study. Nutrition Journal, 14, 88. Scholar
  12. Marcus, B. H., & Forsyth, L. H. (2003). Motivating people to be physically active. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  13. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: helping people change. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  14. Riesch, S. K., Ngui, E., Ehlert, C., Miller, M. K., Cronk, C. A., Leuthner, S., et al. (2013). Community outreach and engagement strategies from the Wisconsin Study Center of the National Children’s Study. Public Health Nursing, 30, 254–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robles, B., Frost, S., Moore, L., Harris, C. V., Bradlyn, A. S., & Kuo, T. (2014). Overweight and obesity among low-income women in rural West Virginia and urban Los Angeles County. Preventive Medicine, 67, S34–S39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Symons Downs, D., & Hausenblas, H. A. (2004). Women’s exercise beliefs and behaviors during their pregnancy and postpartum. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 49, 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Symons Downs, D., & Hausenblas, H. A. (2005). Elicitation studies and the theory of planned behavior: a systematic review of exercise beliefs. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Temel, S., van Voorst, S. F., Jack, B. W., Denktas, S., & Steegers, E. A. P. (2013). Evidence-based preconceptional lifestyle interventions. Epidemiological Reviews, 36, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. US Census Bureau (2016) State median income. Accessed from: on May 30, 2018.
  20. Wilcox, J. C., Campbell, K. J., McCarthy, E. A., Wilkinson, S. A., Lappas, M., Ball, K., et al. (2015). Testing the feasibility of a mobile technology intervention promoting healthy gestational weight gain in pregnant women (txt4two) – study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 16, 209–216. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Exercise Psychology Laboratory, Department of KinesiologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyPenn State College of MedicineHersheyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biobehavioral HealthThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  5. 5.Prevention Center ResearchThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  6. 6.Department of Health Policy and AdministrationThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations