A Theory-Based Exercise App to Enhance Exercise Adherence: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of mobile health (mHealth) technology is on an exponential rise. mHealth apps have the capability to reach a large number of individuals, but until now have lacked the integration of evidence-based theoretical constructs to increase exercise behavior in users. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a theory-based, self-monitoring app on exercise and self-monitoring behavior over 8 weeks. METHODS: A total of 56 adults (mean age 40 years, SD 13) were randomly assigned to either receive the mHealth app (experimental; n=28) or not to receive the app (control; n=28). All participants engaged in an exercise goal-setting session at baseline. Experimental condition participants received weekly short message service (SMS) text messages grounded in social cognitive theory and were encouraged to self-monitor exercise bouts on the app on a daily basis. Exercise behavior, frequency of self-monitoring exercise behavior, self-efficacy to self-monitor, and self-management of exercise behavior were collected at baseline and at postintervention. RESULTS: Engagement in exercise bouts was greater in the experimental condition (mean 7.24, SD 3.40) as compared to the control condition (mean 4.74, SD 3.70, P=.03, d=0.70) at week 8 postintervention. Frequency of self-monitoring increased significantly over the 8-week investigation between the experimental and control conditions (P<.001, partial η(2)=.599), with participants in the experimental condition self-monitoring significantly more at postintervention (mean 6.00, SD 0.93) in comparison to those in the control condition (mean 1.95, SD 2.58, P<.001, d=2.10). Self-efficacy to self-monitor and perceived self-management of exercise behavior were unaffected by this intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The successful integration of social cognitive theory into an mHealth exercise self-monitoring app provides support for future research to feasibly integrate theoretical constructs into existing exercise apps. In addition, findings provide preliminary support for theory-based apps to increase self-monitoring and exercise behavior in comparison to a control, no-app condition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".