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, Pará, 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.
What is already known on this topic
Mobile and web applications can support weight management, but user engagement tends to decline over time without structured professional support, and most evidence comes from high-income countries.
Autonomous AI advice in primary care can be unsafe or discordant with clinical guidelines, underscoring the need for human oversight and auditable systems.
What this study adds
An AI-assisted, human-supervised platform prototype pairing a patient application with a professional dashboard was perceived as usable and acceptable by both patients and primary care professionals in the Brazilian public health system, based on brief hands-on use.
Mixed-methods integration indicated that the disengagement users anticipated corresponded to the risk professionals perceived the dashboard could help identify, locating the platform’s perceived value in human-supervised longitudinal follow-up; the educational AI assistant was its weakest component.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy
It supports designing AI in primary care obesity tools as auditable, supervised support rather than autonomous advice, consistent with the principles of Brazil’s proposed risk-based AI framework.
Participants identified accessibility for low-literacy users, interoperability with the national electronic health record, protected time, and training as potential prerequisites for adoption, which warrant longitudinal, real-world evaluation.
Competing Interest Statement
FFSC conceived, designed, and developed the Boora platform evaluated in this study, had previously provided care to the participating users as their family physician, and also conducted the participant interviews. To mitigate the resulting reflexivity and social desirability bias, standardised interview scripts were strictly followed, participants were explicitly encouraged to provide candid and critical feedback, and a collaborative, second-analyst codebook process was used in the qualitative analysis. The platform was developed for academic and research purposes within a master’s programme and is not a commercial product; the authors hold no patent, registered intellectual property, equity, or revenue arising from it, and derive no financial benefit from the platform or from this study. FFSC notes, for transparency, that methodological insights from this work may inform future, separate digital health research and development; no such product is currently commercialised. CPBA has no competing interests to declare.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Research Ethics Committee of the Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Pará (UFPA), gave ethical approval for this work, under Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Review (CAAE) No. 91547525.4.0000.0018 (Approval Opinion No. 8.088.382).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Competing interests statement updated. The previous version stated that the authors held no registered intellectual property or equity related to the platform. That statement is superseded. After data collection for this study was completed, the platform was renamed following a third-party trademark impediment, and the corresponding author became the sole shareholder of the company that subsequently filed a trademark application (No. 943515610, filed 26 April 2026) and obtained a software registration (No. BR512026005678-0, granted 28 July 2026) relating to the renamed platform and its source code. The corresponding author therefore holds an interest in the potential future economic exploitation of the platform. The company did not exist during the study period and provided no financial, material or analytical support for this work. The platform has not been commercialised and neither author has derived any revenue from it. No changes were made to the data, analyses, results or conclusions.
