asked about the interface, system language, ef-
ficiency in performing the activities, arrange-
ment of dialog boxes, error messages, and system
iconography, there were no serious abnormality
highlighted. But the health professionals pointed
out that a more restrictive system would be inter-
esting for more effectiveness in achieving results
(Table 6).
Table 6: User experience report about interface and appli-
cation restrictions.
User experience report
HP 3: “The application is very pleasing to the eye
and easy to understand.”
HP 4: “It would be interesting if there was a way
to make it easier for patients to access the training
to be carried out.”
P6: “The interface is pretty nice and does not
show navigation problems.”
P9: “I found no serious problems.”
P12: “Some data is complicated to collect and un-
derstand, it needs an improved interface.”
6 CONCLUSION
Physical evaluation software has been developed to
desktop computers. However, with popularization of
mobile technologies, the adoption of mobile apps is
undoubtedly a useful solution. For health profession-
als, the advantage of portability overcomes some bar-
riers and allows the tracking of training, improving
professional-patient communication, and allowing the
follow-up of training guidelines with more effective-
ness.
The WorkUp can be a model to support health
agencies to promote a healthier life and keep record of
the patient physical assessments. The application also
provides users with the ability to keep tracking im-
portant health indicators that show the patient’s evo-
lution. As pointed out earlier, mobile technology is
constantly evolving in the applications market, that
is, every day there are new startups focusing on health
and exercise routines. Therefore, WorkUp has to add
up to this scenario, providing important information
for health professionals. This information can assist
professionals to achieve better results and improve the
quality of life of their patients.
A limitation of this study relates to the perfor-
mance of physical activities, as WorkUp currently re-
stricts to patients the ability to perform physical ac-
tivities proposed by a professional. However, these
mechanisms are dependent on the use of the correct
interface. The system is not integrated to sensors.
Thus, for future work the integration of these tech-
nologies will be accomplished to provide better con-
trol of physical activities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of UTFPR.
REFERENCES
Al Ayubi, S. U., Parmanto, B., Branch, R., and Ding, D.
(2014). A persuasive and social mhealth application
for physical activity: A usability and feasibility study.
JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2(2).
Bonome, K. d. S., Di Santo, C., Prado, C., Sousa, F.,
and Pisa, I. (2012). Disseminac¸
˜
ao do uso de aplica-
tivos m
´
oveis na atenc¸
˜
ao a sa
´
ude. In XIII Congresso
Brasileiro de Inform
´
atica em Sa
´
ude.
Capilheira, M. F., Santos, I. S., Azevedo Jr, M. R., and
Reichert, F. F. (2008). Risk factors for chronic non-
communicable diseases and the carmen initiative: a
population-based study in the south of brazil. Cader-
nos de Saude Publica, 24(12):2767–2774.
da Sa
´
ude, M. (2014). Strategies for the care of the per-
son with chronic disease: Obesity. Departamento de
Atenc¸
˜
ao B
´
asica.
Franklin, N. C. (2015). Technology to promote and increase
physical activity in heart failure. Heart failure clinics,
11(1):173–182.
Free, C., Phillips, G., Felix, L., Galli, L., Patel, V., and Ed-
wards, P. (2010). The effectiveness of m-health tech-
nologies for improving health and health services: a
systematic review protocol. BMC Research Notes,
3(1):250.
Gorton, D., Dixon, R., Maddison, R., Mhurchu, C. N., and
Jull, A. (2011). Consumer views on the potential use
of mobile phones for the delivery of weight-loss inter-
ventions. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics,
24(6):616–619.
Jebb, S. A., Ahern, A. L., Olson, A. D., Aston, L. M.,
Holzapfel, C., Stoll, J., Amann-Gassner, U., Simpson,
A. E., Fuller, N. R., Pearson, S., et al. (2011). Primary
care referral to a commercial provider for weight loss
treatment versus standard care: a randomised con-
trolled trial. The Lancet, 378(9801):1485–1492.
Kaplan, B. and Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative re-
search methods for evaluating computer informa-
tion systems. In Evaluating the organizational im-
pact of healthcare information systems, pages 30–55.
Springer.
Knight, E., Stuckey, M. I., Prapavessis, H., and Petrella,
R. J. (2015). Public health guidelines for physical ac-
tivity: is there an app for that? a review of android and
apple app stores. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3(2).
WorkUp: A Mobile Application to Support Health Guidelines
303