MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157604776 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.3420

Parent-Targeted Mobile Phone Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Sedentary Children: Randomized Pilot Trial

2014· article· en· W2157604776 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert L. Newton, Arwen M. Marker, H. Raymond Allen, Ryan Machtmes, Hongmei Han, William D. Johnson, John M. Schuna, Stephanie T. Broyles, Catrine Tudor‐Locke, Timothy S. Church

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthLouisiana Clinical and Translational Science Center
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPhysical activityMobile phoneIntervention (counseling)Pilot trialPhysical therapySedentary behaviorMedicinePsychologyComputer sciencePsychiatryTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity are associated with adverse health consequences. OBJECTIVE: The intent of the study was to determine the feasibility and efficacy of a 12-week physical activity promotion program targeting children, which was delivered to parents through mobile phones. METHODS: Potential participants were recruited through advertisements placed in the newspaper, local hospitals and schools, and an email listserv. Sedentary children aged 6-10 years were randomly assigned to a minimal (MIG) or intensive (IIG) intervention group. Parents in the MIG were given a goal to increase (within 1 month) and maintain their child's activity at 6000 pedometer steps/day above their baseline levels and to monitor their child's steps daily. Parents in the IIG were given the same steps/day and monitoring goals, in addition to text messages and articles containing additional behavioral strategies (based on the Social Cognitive Theory) designed to promote their child's physical activity. The intervention components were delivered via mobile phone. Anthropometrics, body composition, and questionnaires were administered in a clinic. Children wore a New Lifestyles pedometer (NL-1000) each day throughout the intervention and parents were to monitor their child's step counts daily. RESULTS: Out of 59 children who screened for the study, a total of 27 children (mean age 8.7, SD 1.4 years; 56%, 15/27 female; 59%, 16/27 African American) were enrolled and completed the study. Overall, 97.90% (2220/2268; 98.20%, 1072/1092 for MIG; 97.60%, 1148/1176 for IIG) of expected step data were successfully entered by the parent or study coordinator. Parents in the MIG and IIG were sent approximately 7 and 13 text messages per week, respectively, averaged over the course of the study. IIG parents accessed an average of 6.1 (SD 4.4) articles over the course of the intervention and accessed a fewer number of articles in the last month compared to the first 2 months of the study (P=.002). Children in both the MIG and IIG significantly increased their physical activity, averaged over 12 weeks, by 1427.6 (SD 583.0; P=.02) and 2832.8 (SD 604.9; P<.001) steps/day above baseline, respectively. The between group difference was not statistically significant (P=.10; effect size=.40), nor was the group by time interaction (P=.57). Regardless of group assignment, children who significantly increased their physical activity reported greater increases in physical activity enjoyment (P=.003). The number of behavioral articles accessed by IIG parents was significantly correlated with change in children's steps/day (r=.575, P=.04). Changes in children's steps/day were unrelated to changes in their body composition, mood, and food intake. CONCLUSIONS: Parent-targeted mobile phone interventions are feasible, yet more intense interventions may be needed to support parents' efforts to increase their children's physical activity to levels that approximate national recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01551108; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01551108 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6TNEOzXNX).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207