Effects of Mobile Health Prompts on Self-Monitoring and Exercise Behaviors Following a Diabetes Prevention Program: Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of mobile health (mHealth) apps exist that focus specifically on promoting exercise behavior. To increase user engagement, prompts, such as text messages, emails, or push notifications, are often used. To date, little research has been done to understand whether, and for how long, these prompts influence exercise behavior. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of prompts on mHealth self-monitoring and self-reported exercise in the days following a prompt and whether these effects differ based on exercise modality. METHODS: Of the possible 99 adults at risk for developing type II diabetes who participated in a diabetes prevention program, 69 were included in this secondary analysis. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of the following 2 exercise conditions: high-intensity interval training or moderate-intensity continuous training. In the year following a brief, community-based diabetes prevention program involving counseling and supervised exercise sessions, all participants self-monitored their daily exercise behaviors on an mHealth app in which they were sent personalized prompts at varying frequencies. mHealth self-monitoring and self-reported exercise data from the app were averaged over 1, 3, 5, and 7 days preceding and following a prompt and subsequently compared using t tests. RESULTS: =2.46; P=.02; d=0.15) following a prompt, whereas no significant changes were found in the second half of the year. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence regarding the potential influence of prompts on mHealth self-monitoring and self-reported exercise and the duration for which prompts may be effective as exercise behavior change tools. Future studies should determine the optimal prompting frequency for influencing self-reported exercise behaviors. Optimizing prompt frequency can potentially reduce intervention costs and promote user engagement. Furthermore, it can encourage consumers to self-monitor using mHealth technology while ensuring prompts are sent when necessary and effective. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR2-10.2196/11226.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".