The role of smartphones in encouraging physical activity in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of physical activity is a global public health issue. Behavioral change interventions utilizing smartphone applications (apps) are considered a potential solution. The purpose of this literature review was to: 1) determine whether smartphone-based interventions encourage the initiation of, and participation in, physical activity; 2) explore the success of interventions in different populations; and 3) examine the key factors of the interventions that successfully encouraged physical activity. Eight databases (Medline, Scopus, EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBM Reviews-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycInfo, SportDISCUS, CINAHL, and EMBASE) were searched and studies reporting physical activity outcomes following interventions using smartphone apps in adults were included in the narrative review. Results were mixed with eight studies reporting increased physical activity and ten reporting no change. Interventions did not appear to be successful in specific populations defined by age, sex, country, or clinical diagnosis. There was no conclusive evidence that a specific behavioral theory or behavioral change technique was superior in eliciting behavioral change. The literature remains limited primarily to short-term studies, many of which are underpowered feasibility or pilot studies; therefore, many knowledge gaps regarding the effectiveness of smartphone apps in encouraging physical activity remain. Robust studies that can accommodate the fast pace of the technology industry are needed to examine outcomes in large populations.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".