Using Online Computer Tailoring to Promote Physical Activity: A Randomized Trial of Text, Video, and Combined Intervention Delivery Modes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Website-delivered interventions are increasingly used to deliver physical activity interventions, yet problems with engagement and retention result in reduced effectiveness. Hence, alternative modes of online intervention delivery need to be explored. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and effectiveness of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention delivered on the Internet in 3 delivery modes: video, text, or both. Australian adults (N = 803), recruited through e-mail, were randomized into the three delivery modes and received personal physical activity advice. Intervention content was identical across groups. Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to compare the three groups regarding acceptability, website usability, and physical activity. Participants in the video group accepted the content of the physical activity advice significantly better (F = 5.59; p < .01), and spent significantly more time on the website (F = 21.19; p < .001) compared with the text and combination groups. Total physical activity improved significantly over time in all groups (F = 3.95; p < .01). Although the combination group increased physical activity the most, few significant differences between groups were observed. Providing video-tailored feedback has advantages over the conventional text-tailored interventions; however, this study revealed few behavioral differences. More studies, examining alternative delivery modes, that can overcome the limitations of the present study, are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it