Table 5. Fitness app acceptance investigated by the qualitative study by Wichmann et al. [53].

Theme	Subtheme(s)		Specifications
app usage	readiness to future fitness app usage		greater among fitness app users (FG2/3) compared to non-users (FG1)
attitudes towards fitness app usage	general attitudes		more positive among fitness app users (FG2/3) compared to non-users (FG1)
	barriers (across all FG)	perceived ease of use	lack of easy handling, simplicity, practicability of usage manual data entry permanent carrying of mobile phone (preference for wristband)
		privacy concerns	potential data use by health insurance companies potential data use for commercial purposes exception: if app positively promoted by others and willingness to usage high, then the reluctance to disclose data would decrease
		technologization skepticism	unwillingness to be “dictated” by app, demand for autonomous decision-making regarding intensity of movement independently fitness apps generally disadvantageous as ability of self-perception diminishes due to technologization
	facilitators (across all FG)	perceived usefulness	useful for initiation of PA (“majority of participants”); conditions:1. if fixed aims are set, 2. if self-discipline and motivation existent motivation for the initiation of increasing fitness levels helpful in promoting a general healthy lifestyle support for creating diverse and intensive sport programs
wishes towards fitness apps	general functioning (across all FG)		maximum ease/simplicity of use
	specific features (across all FG)	monitoring function	automatic, non-manual sensory activity tracking activity tracking/monitoring
		feedback function	feedback on self-control by means of reminders feedback by means of social comparisons (e.g. challenges, comparison of success with others)

FG = focus group. FG1 = focus group with fitness app users, FG2 and FG3 = focus groups with non-users. PA = physical activity. Note: Themes, subthemes and specifications presented here are a result of the review synthesis process resp. thematic analysis, i.e., this table depicts an abstraction resp. deduction of the primary study results and only involves study results [53] addressing the review questions.