Web-Based Video-Coaching to Assist an Automated Computer-Tailored Physical Activity Intervention for Inactive Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Web-based physical activity interventions that apply computer tailoring have shown to improve engagement and behavioral outcomes but provide limited accountability and social support for participants. It is unknown how video calls with a behavioral expert in a Web-based intervention will be received and whether they improve the effectiveness of computer-tailored advice. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of brief video-based coaching in addition to fully automated computer-tailored advice in a Web-based physical activity intervention for inactive adults. METHODS: Participants were assigned to one of the three groups: (1) tailoring + video-coaching where participants received an 8-week computer-tailored Web-based physical activity intervention ("My Activity Coach") including 4 10-minute coaching sessions with a behavioral expert using a Web-based video-calling program (eg, Skype; n=52); (2) tailoring-only where participants received the same intervention without the coaching sessions (n=54); and (3) a waitlist control group (n=45). Demographics were measured at baseline, intervention satisfaction at week 9, and physical activity at baseline, week 9, and 6 months by Web-based self-report surveys. Feasibility was analyzed by comparing intervention groups on retention, adherence, engagement, and satisfaction using t tests and chi-square tests. Effectiveness was assessed using linear mixed models to compare physical activity changes between groups. RESULTS: A total of 23 tailoring + video-coaching participants, 30 tailoring-only participants, and 30 control participants completed the postintervention survey (83/151, 55.0% retention). A low percentage of tailoring + video-coaching completers participated in the coaching calls (11/23, 48%). However, the majority of those who participated in the video calls were satisfied with them (5/8, 71%) and had improved intervention adherence (9/11, 82% completed 3 or 4 modules vs 18/42, 43%, P=.01) and engagement (110 minutes spent on the website vs 78 minutes, P=.02) compared with other participants. There were no overall retention, adherence, engagement, and satisfaction differences between tailoring + video-coaching and tailoring-only participants. At 9 weeks, physical activity increased from baseline to postintervention in all groups (tailoring + video-coaching: +150 minutes/week; tailoring only: +123 minutes/week; waitlist control: +34 minutes/week). The increase was significantly higher in the tailoring + video-coaching group compared with the control group (P=.01). No significant difference was found between intervention groups and no significant between-group differences were found for physical activity change at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Only small improvements were observed when video-coaching was added to computer-tailored advice in a Web-based physical activity intervention. However, combined Web-based video-coaching and computer-tailored advice was effective in comparison with a control group. More research is needed to determine whether Web-based coaching is more effective than stand-alone computer-tailored advice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN): 12614000339651; http://www.anzctr.org.au/TrialSearch.aspx?searchTxt=ACTRN12614000339651+&isBasic=True (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6jTnOv0Ld).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».