Adults’ Preferences for Behavior Change Techniques and Engagement Features in a Mobile App to Promote 24-Hour Movement Behaviors: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a limited understanding of components that should be included in digital interventions for 24-hour movement behaviors (physical activity [PA], sleep, and sedentary behavior [SB]). For intervention effectiveness, user engagement is important. This can be enhanced by a user-centered design to, for example, explore and integrate user preferences for intervention techniques and features. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine adult users' preferences for techniques and features in mobile apps for 24-hour movement behaviors. METHODS: A total of 86 participants (mean age 37.4 years [SD 9.2]; 49/86, 57% female) completed a Web-based survey. Behavior change techniques (BCTs) were based on a validated taxonomy v2 by Abraham and Michie, and engagement features were based on a list extracted from the literature. Behavioral data were collected using Fitbit trackers. Correlations, (repeated measures) analysis of variance, and independent sample t tests were used to examine associations and differences between and within users by the type of health domain and users' behavioral intention and adoption. RESULTS: Preferences were generally the highest for information on the health consequences of movement behavior self-monitoring, behavioral feedback, insight into healthy lifestyles, and tips and instructions. Although the same ranking was found for techniques across behaviors, preferences were stronger for all but one BCT for PA in comparison to the other two health behaviors. Although techniques fit user preferences for addressing PA well, supplemental techniques may be able to address preferences for sleep and SB in a better manner. In addition to what is commonly included in apps, sleep apps should consider providing tips for sleep. SB apps may wish to include more self-regulation and goal-setting techniques. Few differences were found by users' intentions or adoption to change a particular behavior. Apps should provide more self-monitoring (P=.03), information on behavior health outcome (P=.048), and feedback (P=.04) and incorporate social support (P=.048) to help those who are further removed from healthy sleep. A virtual coach (P<.001) and video modeling (P=.004) may provide appreciated support to those who are physically less active. PA self-monitoring appealed more to those with an intention to change PA (P=.03). Social comparison and support features are not high on users' agenda and may not be needed from an engagement point of view. Engagement features may not be very relevant for user engagement but should be examined in future research with a less reflective method. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study provide guidance for the design of digital 24-hour movement behavior interventions. As 24-hour movement guidelines are increasingly being adopted in several countries, our study findings are timely to support the design of interventions to meet these guidelines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".