Back

Boora, an AI-assisted digital platform for overweight and obesity care in Brazilian primary care: a formative mixed-methods evaluation of perceived usability and acceptability

Couto, F. d. F. S.; Almeida, C. P. B.

2026-07-16 primary care research
10.64898/2026.07.15.26358116 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective. To evaluate the perceived usability, acceptability, and user experience (rather than the clinical effectiveness) of Boora, an AI-assisted, human-supervised digital platform prototype for longitudinal overweight and obesity care, among users and health professionals in Brazilian primary care. Design. Convergent mixed-methods formative evaluation. Perceived usability was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS) and summarised descriptively; semi-structured interviews conducted after hands-on use were analysed with codebook thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke); the two strands were integrated through a joint display. Qualitative reporting followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). Setting. Primary health care network of Ananindeua, Para, within the Brazilian Unified Health System (January to February 2026). Participants. Fifteen adults with overweight or obesity (BMI at least 25 kg/m2, confirmed via electronic health records) who used the patient application on their own smartphones for 24 hours, and eight primary care professionals (nurses, physicians, and a dietitian) who used the professional dashboard for approximately 20 minutes on predefined tasks with synthetic data. Main outcome measures. SUS scores and qualitative themes addressing usability, acceptability, perceived usefulness, barriers, and perceived clinical and workflow fit. Results. Boora showed good perceived usability in both cohorts (users mean 76.5, SD 10.3; professionals mean 77.5, SD 4.6; both above the SUS normative average of 68). Four themes emerged per cohort. Users valued an accessible interface and visible progress but described daily logging burden, fragile anticipated engagement, and digital-literacy and accessibility barriers. Professionals valued a clear interface and the prospect of panel-managed, proactive follow-up, while requiring training, AI governance, protected time, and interoperability with the national record. Integration indicated that the disengagement users anticipated was the risk professionals perceived the dashboard could help identify, whereas the educational AI assistant was the weakest and most ambiguous component for both groups. Conclusions. Boora was perceived as usable and acceptable, with perceived value concentrated in human-supervised, longitudinal follow-up rather than autonomous self-tracking or AI advice. These findings concern perceived usability and acceptability, not clinical effectiveness or sustained engagement. Real-world adoption would depend on accessibility refinements, electronic-record integration, and clear AI governance aligned with the principles of Brazil's proposed risk-based AI framework and the LGPD.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.9%
2
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
3
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.5%
4
JMIR Research Protocols
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.4%
5
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 3%
5.4%
6
BJGP Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.0%
8
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.4%
9
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
10
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
11
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
12
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
13
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
14
Journal of Sleep Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
15
JMIRx Med
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.4%
16
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
17
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
18
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
19
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
20
Health Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
21
Systematic Reviews
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
22
Public Health Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
23
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
24
Archives of Public Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
25
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
26
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
27
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
28
Health Expectations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
29
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
30
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%