Combining Users’ Needs With Health Behavior Models in Designing an Internet- and Mobile-Based Intervention for Physical Activity in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internet-based physical activity interventions have great potential in supporting patients in cardiac rehabilitation. Health behavior change theories and user input are identified as important contributors in the effectiveness of the interventions, but they are rarely combined in a systematic way in the design of the interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify the appropriate theoretical framework, along with the needs of the users of a physical activity intervention for cardiac rehabilitation, and to combine them into an effective Internet- and mobile-based intervention. METHODS: We explain the theoretical framework of the intervention in a narrative overview of the existing health behavior change literature as it applies to physical activity. We also conducted a focus group with 11 participants of a cardiac rehabilitation program and used thematic analysis to identify and analyze patterns of meaning in the transcribed data. RESULTS: We chose stage-based approaches, specifically the transtheoretical model and the health action process approach as our main framework for tailoring, supplemented with other theoretical concepts such as regulatory focus within the appropriate stages. From the thematic analysis of the focus group data, we identified seven themes: (1) social, (2) motivation, (3) integration into everyday life, (4) information, (5) planning, (6) monitoring and feedback, and (7) concerns and potential problems. The final design of the intervention was based on both the theoretical review and the user input, and it is explained in detail. CONCLUSIONS: We applied a combination of health behavioral theory and user input in designing our intervention. We think this is a promising design approach with the potential to combine the high efficacy of theory-based interventions with the higher perceived usefulness of interventions designed according to user input. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01223170; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01223170 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6M5FqT9Q2).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".