Use Patterns of Smartphone Apps and Wearable Devices Supporting Physical Activity and Exercise: Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Physical inactivity is a global health issue, and mobile health (mHealth) apps are expected to play an important role in promoting physical activity. Empirical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and efficiency of app-based interventions, and an increasing number of apps with more functions and richer content have been released. Regardless of the success of mHealth apps, there are important evidence gaps in the literature; that is, it is largely unknown who uses what app functions and which functions are associated with physical activity. Objective: This study aims to investigate the use patterns of apps and wearables supporting physical activity and exercise in a Japanese-speaking community sample. Methods: We recruited 20,573 web-based panelists who completed questionnaires concerning demographics, regular physical activity levels, and use of apps and wearables supporting physical activity. Participants who indicated that they were using a physical activity app or wearable were presented with a list of app functions (eg, sensor information, goal setting, journaling, and reward), among which they selected any functions they used. Results: Approximately one-quarter (n=4465) of the sample was identified as app users and showed similar demographic characteristics to samples documented in the literature; that is, compared with app nonusers, app users were younger (odds ratio [OR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.50-0.65), were more likely to be men (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.90), had higher BMI scores (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), had higher levels of education (university or above; OR 1.528, 95% CI 1.19-1.99), were more likely to have a child (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28) and job (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17-1.40), and had a higher household income (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.21-1.62). Our results revealed unique associations between demographic variables and specific app functions. For example, sensor information, journaling, and GPS were more frequently used by men than women (ORs <0.84). Another important finding is that people used a median of 2 (IQR 1-4) different functions within an app, and the most common pattern was to use sensor information (ie, self-monitoring) and one other function such as goal setting or reminders. Conclusions: Regardless of the current trend in app development toward multifunctionality, our findings highlight the importance of app simplicity. A set of two functions (more precisely, self-monitoring and one other function) might be the minimum that can be accepted by most users. In addition, the identified individual differences will help developers and stakeholders pave the way for the personalization of app functions.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».