Unraveling Mobile Health Exercise Interventions for Adults: Scoping Review on the Implementations and Designs of Persuasive Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear why some physical activity (PA) mobile health (mHealth) interventions successfully promote PA whereas others do not. One possible explanation is the variety in PA mHealth interventions-not only do interventions differ in the selection of persuasive strategies but also the design and implementation of persuasive strategies can vary. However, limited studies have examined the different designs and technical implementations of strategies or explored if they indeed influenced the effectiveness of the intervention. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review sets out to explore the different technical implementations and design characteristics of common and likely most effective persuasive strategies, namely, goal setting, monitoring, reminders, rewards, sharing, and social comparison. Furthermore, this review aims to explore whether previous mHealth studies examined the influence of the different design characteristics and technical operationalizations of common persuasive strategies on the effectiveness of the intervention to persuade the user to engage in PA. METHODS: An unsystematic snowball and gray literature search was performed to identify the literature that evaluated the persuasive strategies in experimental trials (eg, randomized controlled trial, pre-post test). Studies were included if they targeted adults, if they were (partly) delivered by a mobile system, if they reported PA outcomes, if they used an experimental trial, and when they specifically compared the effect of different designs or implementations of persuasive strategies. The study methods, implementations, and designs of persuasive strategies, and the study results were systematically extracted from the literature by the reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 29 experimental trials were identified. We found a heterogeneity in how the strategies are being implemented and designed. Moreover, the findings indicated that the implementation and design of the strategy has an influence on the effectiveness of the PA intervention. For instance, the effectiveness of rewarding was shown to vary between types of rewards; rewarding goal achievement seems to be more effective than rewarding each step taken. Furthermore, studies comparing different ways of goal setting suggested that assigning a goal to users might appear to be more effective than letting the user set their own goal, similar to using adaptively tailored goals as opposed to static generic goals. This study further demonstrates that only a few studies have examined the influence of different technical implementations on PA behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The different implementations and designs of persuasive strategies in mHealth interventions should be critically considered when developing such interventions and before drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of the strategy as a whole. Future efforts are needed to examine which implementations and designs are most effective to improve the translation of theory-based persuasive strategies into practical delivery forms.
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 | 0.038 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".