Motivations and barriers to engagement with a technology-enabled community wide physical activity intervention

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 26;15(6):e0232317. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232317. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Previous physical activity interventions have failed to create population change and an alternative approach is needed to support a World Health Organization target of a 15% reduction in global levels of inactivity by 2030. There is growing evidence that gamification-based interventions can reach substantial portions of the community. However, to date, these studies have been predominantly quantitative and as such there is a paucity of research in the area on motivations and barriers to engagement with these programs. Four focus groups conducted with N = 26 players who participated in a gamification-based intervention 'Beat the Street' revealed several varied motives to engagement, including collective reward; social influence; game reinvention; exploration; accessibility and awareness. However, several barriers specific to the Beat the Street intervention and outdoor gamification interventions more generally were also identified. This study provides novel insight into the motives which engage individuals into physical activity interventions and the design principles which need to be considered when implementing interventions of this nature.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Awareness
  • Bicycling
  • Exercise*
  • Female
  • Focus Groups
  • Game Theory
  • Health Promotion*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Motivation*
  • Walking
  • Wearable Electronic Devices

Associated data

  • figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.11336045.v1
  • figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.11336042.v1
  • figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.11336036.v1
  • figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.11336033.v1

Grants and funding

The Beat the Street intervention and the data collection of the current study were funded by Sport England, the National Lottery and City of Wolverhampton Council. Intelligent Health, who delivered the intervention, also provided funding in the form of a salary for MH, who was employed at the time this manuscript was written. The specific role of this author is articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The funders had no further role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.