Barriers to and Facilitators of the Use of Digital Tools in Primary Care to Deliver Physical Activity Advice: Semistructured Interviews and Thematic Analysis

Abstract

Background Physical inactivity is a leading risk factor for many health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer; therefore, increasing physical activity (PA) is a public health priority. Health care professionals (HCPs) in primary care are pivotal in addressing physical inactivity; however, few HCPs provide PA advice to patients. There can be obstacles to delivering PA advice, including lack of time, confidence, or knowledge. Digital technology has the potential to overcome obstacles and facilitate delivering PA advice. However, it is unknown if and how digital tools are used to deliver PA advice in primary care consultations and what factors influence their use. Objective We aimed to understand the use of digital tools to support primary care consultations and to identify the barriers to and facilitators of using these systems. Methods Overall, 25 semistructured interviews were conducted with primary care HCPs. Professionals were sampled based on profession (general practitioners, practice nurses, and health care assistants), prevalence of long-term conditions within their practice area, and rural-urban classification. The data were analyzed thematically to identify the influences on the use of digital tools. Themes were categorized using the COM-B (capability, opportunity, and motivation—behavior) model and the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify the barriers to and facilitators of using digital tools to support the delivery of PA advice in primary care consultations. Results The identified themes fell within 8 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. The most prominent influence (barrier or facilitator) within psychological capability was having the skills to use digital tools. Training in the use of digital tools was also mentioned several times. The most notable influences within physical opportunity were limited digital tools to prompt/support the provision of PA advice, time constraints, efficiency of digital tools, simplicity and ease of use of digital tools, and integration with existing systems. Other physical opportunity influences included lack of access to digital tools and technical support in the use of digital tools. Within social opportunity, a notable barrier was that digital tools reduce interpersonal communication with patients. Patient preference was also identified. Several important influences were within reflective motivation, including confidence to use digital tools, beliefs about the usefulness of digital tools, the belief that digital tools “are the way forward,” beliefs related to data privacy and security concerns, and perceptions about patient capabilities. About automatic motivation, influences included familiarity and availability regarding digital tools and the fact that digital tools prompt behavior. Conclusions A variety of influences were identified on the use of digital tools to support primary care consultations. These findings provide a foundation for designing a digital tool addressing barriers and leverages the facilitators to support PA advice provision within primary care to elicit patient behavior change and increase PA.