MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762718367 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.6675

Feasibility of Gamified Mobile Service Aimed at Physical Activation in Young Men: Population-Based Randomized Controlled Study (MOPO)

2017· article· en· W2762718367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna‐Maiju Leinonen, Riitta Pyky, Riikka Ahola, Maarit Kangas, Pekka Siirtola, Tim Luoto, Heidi Enwald, Tiina M. Ikäheimo, Juha Röning, Sirkka Keinänen‐Kiukaanniemi, Matti Mäntysaari, Raija Korpelainen, Timo Jämsä

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundInfotech OuluJuho Vainion SäätiöSuomen Kulttuurirahasto
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPopulationPhysical therapyMedicinemHealthAnthropometryIntervention (counseling)GerontologyService (business)PsychologyPsychological interventionNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The majority of young people do not meet the recommendations on physical activity for health. New innovative ways to motivate young people to adopt a physically active lifestyle are needed. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to study the feasibility of an automated, gamified, tailored Web-based mobile service aimed at physical and social activation among young men. METHODS: A population-based sample of 496 young men (mean age 17.8 years [standard deviation 0.6]) participated in a 6-month randomized controlled trial (MOPO study). Participants were randomized to an intervention (n=250) and a control group (n=246). The intervention group was given a wrist-worn physical activity monitor (Polar Active) with physical activity feedback and access to a gamified Web-based mobile service, providing fitness guidelines, tailored health information, advice of youth services, social networking, and feedback on physical activity. Through the trial, the physical activity of the men in the control group was measured continuously with an otherwise similar monitor but providing only the time of day and no feedback. The primary outcome was the feasibility of the service based on log data and questionnaires. Among completers, we also analyzed the change in anthropometry and fitness between baseline and 6 months and the change over time in weekly time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity. RESULTS: Mobile service users considered the various functionalities related to physical activity important. However, compliance of the service was limited, with 161 (64.4%, 161/250) participants visiting the service, 118 (47.2%, 118/250) logging in more than once, and 41 (16.4%, 41/250) more than 5 times. Baseline sedentary time was higher in those who uploaded physical activity data until the end of the trial (P=.02). A total of 187 (74.8%, 187/250) participants in the intervention and 167 (67.9%, 167/246) in the control group participated in the final measurements. There were no differences in the change in anthropometry and fitness from baseline between the groups, whereas waist circumference was reduced in the most inactive men within the intervention group (P=.01). Among completers with valid physical activity data (n=167), there was a borderline difference in the change in mean daily time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity between the groups (11.9 min vs -9.1 min, P=.055, linear mixed model). Within the intervention group (n=87), baseline vigorous physical activity was inversely associated with change in moderate to vigorous physical activity during the trial (R=-.382, P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: The various functionalities related to physical activity of the gamified tailored mobile service were considered important. However, the compliance was limited. Within the current setup, the mobile service had no effect on anthropometry or fitness, except reduced waist circumference in the most inactive men. Among completers with valid physical activity data, the trial had a borderline positive effect on moderate to vigorous physical activity. Further development is needed to improve the feasibility and adherence of an integrated multifunctional service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01376986; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01376986 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6tjdmIroA).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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