Effectiveness of an 8-Week Physical Activity Intervention Involving Wearable Activity Trackers and an eHealth App: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Health-promotion interventions incorporating wearable technology or eHealth apps can encourage participants to self-monitor and modify their physical activity and sedentary behavior. In 2020, a Calgary (Alberta, Canada) recreational facility developed and implemented a health-promotion intervention (Vivo Play Scientist program) that provided a commercially available wearable activity tracker and a customized eHealth dashboard to participants free of cost. Objective The aim of this study was to independently evaluate the effectiveness of the Vivo Play Scientist program for modifying physical activity and sedentary behavior during the initial 8 weeks of the piloted intervention. Methods Our concurrent mixed methods study included a single-arm repeated-measures quasiexperiment and semistructured interviews. Among the 318 eligible participants (≥18 years of age) registered for the program, 87 completed three self-administered online surveys (baseline, T0; 4 weeks, T1; and 8 weeks, T2). The survey captured physical activity, sedentary behavior, use of wearable technology and eHealth apps, and sociodemographic characteristics. Twenty-three participants were recruited using maximal-variation sampling and completed telephone-administered semistructured interviews regarding their program experiences. Self-reported physical activity and sedentary behavior outcomes were statistically compared among the three time points using Friedman tests. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview data. Results The mean age of participants was 39.8 (SD 7.4) years and 75% (65/87) were women. Approximately half of all participants had previously used wearable technology (40/87, 46%) or an eHealth app (43/87, 49%) prior to the intervention. On average, participants reported wearing the activity tracker (Garmin Vivofit4) for 6.4 (SD 1.7) days in the past week at T1 and for 6.0 (SD 2.2) days in the past week at T2. On average, participants reported using the dashboard for 1.6 (SD 2.1) days in the past week at T1 and for 1.0 (SD 1.8) day in the past week at T2. The mean time spent walking at 8 weeks was significantly higher compared with that at baseline (T0 180.34 vs T2 253.79 minutes/week, P=.005), with no significant differences for other physical activity outcomes. Compared to that at baseline, the mean time spent sitting was significantly lower at 4 weeks (T0 334.26 vs T1 260.46 minutes/day, P<.001) and 8 weeks (T0 334.26 vs T2 267.13 minutes/day, P<.001). Significant differences in physical activity and sitting between time points were found among subgroups based on the household composition, history of wearable technology use, and history of eHealth app use. Participants described how wearing the Vivofit4 device was beneficial in helping them to modify physical activity and sedentary behavior. The social support, as a result of multiple members of the same household participating in the program, motivated changes in physical activity. Participants experienced improvements in their mental, physical, and social health. Conclusions Providing individuals with free-of-cost commercially available wearable technology and an eHealth app has the potential to support increases in physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior in the short term, even under COVID-19 public health restrictions.
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 | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».