Assessing the use of a portable time-geographic diary for detecting patterns of daily occupations

References

• Yerxa EJ. Foreword. In: Pierce D, editor. Occupational science for occupational therapy. Thorofare (NJ): SLACK Incorporated; 2014. p. xix–xxx.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce D. Occupational science: a powerful disciplinary knowledge base for occupational therapy. In: Pierce D, editor. Occupational science for occupational therapy. Thorofare (NJ): SLACK Incorporated; 2014. p. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Erlandsson L-K, Eklund M, Persson D. Occupational value and relationships to meaning and health: elaborations of the ValMO-model. Scand J Occup Ther. 2011;18(1):72–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eklund M, Erlandsson L-K. Quality of life and client satisfaction as outcomes of the Redesigning Daily Occupations (ReDO) programme for women with stress-related disorders: a comparative study. Work. 2013;46(1):51–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Orban K, Edberg A-K, Erlandsson L-K. Using a time-geographical diary method in order to facilitate reflections on changes in patterns of daily occupations. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19(3):249–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson D, Erlandsson L-K, Eklund M, et al. Value dimensions, meaning, and complexity in human occupation: a tentative structure for analysis. Scand J Occup Ther. 2001;8(1):7–18.
   Google Scholar
• Ellegård K. A time-geographical approach to the study of everyday life of individuals: a challenge of complexity. GeoJournal. 1999;48(3):167–175.
   Google Scholar
• Ellegård K. Thinking time geography. Concepts, methods and applications. New York (NY): Routledge; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Nordell K. Kvinnors hälsa – en fråga om medvetenhet, möjligheter och makt. [Women’s health – a matter of awareness, possibilities and power] (In Swedish). Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Sweden; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Erlandsson L-K. 101 women’s patterns of daily occupations: characteristics and relationships to health and well-being [dissertation]. Lund (Sweden): Lund University; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Erlandsson L-K, Eklund M. Describing patterns of daily occupations- a methodological study comparing data from four different methods. Scand J Occup Ther. 2001;8(1):31–39.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey AS, Pentland WE, et al. Time use research. In: Pentland WE, Lawton PM, Harvey AS, editors. Time use research in the social sciences. New York (NY): Springer; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Bauman A, Bittman M, Gershuny J. A short history of time use research; implications for public health. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(S2):607.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hägerstrand T. What about people in regional science? Pap Reg Sci Assoc. 1970;24(1):6–21.
   Google Scholar
• Orban K, Ellegård K, Thorngren-Jerneck K, et al. Shared patterns of daily occupations among parents of children aged 4–6 years old with obesity. J Occup Sci. 2012;19(3):241–257.
   Google Scholar
• Vrotsou K, Bergqvist M, Cooper M, et al PODD: a portable diary data collection system. AVI '14 Proceedings of the 2014 International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. New York (NY): Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); 2014. p. 381–382.
   Google Scholar
• Anaby D, Vrotsou K, Kroksmark U, et al. Changes in participation patterns of youth with physical disabilities following the pathways and resources for engagement and participation intervention: a time-geography approach. Scand J Occup Ther. 2019;20:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Inc; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. Ease of operation of everyday products – Part 1 Design requirements for context of use and user characteristics. 2006 [cited 2020 May 10]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:20282:-1:ed-1:v1:en:term:3.18.
   Google Scholar
• Brooke J. SUS: a retrospective. J Usability Stud. 2013;8:29–40.
   Google Scholar
• Brooke J. SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan P, Thomas B, Weerdmeester B, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London (UK): Taylor & Francis; 1996. p. 189–194.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR, Sauro J. Item benchmark for the System Usability Scale. J Usabil Stud. 2018;13:158–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen J. Usability 101: introduction to usability: NN/g Nielsen Norman group. 2012 [cited 2020 May 10]. Available from: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/.
   Google Scholar
• Ankur J, Saklet K, Satish C, et al. Likert scale: explored and explained. Brit J Appl Sci Techn. 2015;7:396–403.
   Google Scholar
• Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concept, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Medical research involving human subjects. 2013 [cited 2020 May 10]. Available from: https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and Council of European Union Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation); [cited 2020 Oct 24]. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Vision for eHealth 2025. In: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. 2016 [cited 2020 Dec 28]. Available from: https://ehalsa2025.se/in-english/.
   Google Scholar
• Pavlović I, Kern T, Miklavcic D. Comparison of paper-based and electronic data collection process in clinical trials: costs simulation study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30(4):300–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh KL, Fanning JT, Rogers WA, et al. A fall risk mHealth app for older adults: development and Usability Study. JMIR Aging. 2018;1(2):e11569.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Palermo TM, Valenzuela D, Stork PP. A randomized trial of electronic versus paper pain diaries in children: impact on compliance, accurarcy, and acceptability. Pain. 2004;107:213–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlbring P, Brunt S, Bohman S, et al. Internet vs. paper and pencil administration of questionnaires commonly used in panic/agoraphobia research. Comput Hum Behav. 2007;23(3):1421–1434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauro J, Pareezad Z. SUPR-Qm: a questionnaire to measure the mobile app user experience. J Usability Stud. 2017;13:17–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson S, Gulliksen J, Gustavsson C. Disability digital divide: the use of the internet, smartphones, computers and tablets among people with disabilities in Sweden. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2020. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00714-x.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J, Laundauer T. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proceedings of the ACM INTERCHI’93 Conference; Amsterdam, Netherlands: ACM Press; 1993. p. 206–213.
   Google Scholar
• Bastien CJ. Usability testing: a review of some methodlogical and technical aspects of the method. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79:18–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patientdatalag (SFS 2008: 355); [cited 2020 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/patientdatalag-2008355_sfs-2008-355.
   Google Scholar