Using Mobile Health Tools to Assess Physical Activity Guideline Adherence and Smoking Urges: Secondary Analysis of mActive-Smoke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rates of cigarette smoking are decreasing because of public health initiatives, pharmacological aids, and clinician focus on smoking cessation. However, a sedentary lifestyle increases cardiovascular risk, and therefore, inactive smokers have a particularly enhanced risk of cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: In this secondary analysis of mActive-Smoke, a 12-week observational study, we investigated adherence to guideline-recommended moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in smokers and its association with the urge to smoke. METHODS: We enrolled 60 active smokers (≥3 cigarettes per day) and recorded continuous step counts with the Fitbit Charge HR. MVPA was defined as a cadence of greater than or equal to 100 steps per minute. Participants were prompted to report instantaneous smoking urges via text message 3 times a day on a Likert scale from 1 to 9. We used a mixed effects linear model for repeated measures, controlling for demographics and baseline activity level, to investigate the association between MVPA and urge. RESULTS: A total of 53 participants (mean age 40 [SD 12] years, 57% [30/53] women, 49% [26/53] nonwhite, and 38% [20/53] obese) recorded 6 to 12 weeks of data. Data from 3633 person-days were analyzed, with a mean of 69 days per participant. Among all participants, median daily MVPA was 6 min (IQR 2-13), which differed by sex (12 min [IQR 3-20] for men vs 3.5 min [IQR 1-9] for women; P=.004) and BMI (2.5 min [IQR 1-8.3] for obese vs 10 min [IQR 3-15] for nonobese; P=.04). The median total MVPA minutes per week was 80 (IQR 31-162). Only 10% (5/51; 95% CI 4% to 22%) of participants met national guidelines of 150 min per week of MVPA on at least 50% of weeks. Adjusted models showed no association between the number of MVPA minutes per day and mean daily smoking urge (P=.72). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MVPA was low in adult smokers who rarely met national guidelines for MVPA. Given the poor physical activity attainment in smokers, more work is required to enhance physical activity in this population.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".