Are web-based personally tailored physical activity videos more effective than personally tailored text-based interventions? Results from the three-arm randomised controlled TaylorActive trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Some online, personally tailored, text-based physical activity interventions have proven effective. However, people tend to 'skim' and 'scan' web-based text rather than thoroughly read their contents. In contrast, online videos are more engaging and popular. We examined whether web-based personally tailored physical activity videos were more effective in promoting physical activity than personally tailored text and generic information. METHODS: 501 adults were randomised into a video-tailored intervention, text-tailored intervention or control. Over a 3-month period, intervention groups received access to eight sessions of web-based personally tailored physical activity advice. Only the delivery method differed between intervention groups: tailored video versus tailored text. The primary outcome was 7-day ActiGraph-GT3X+ measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) assessed at 0, 3 and 9 months. Secondary outcomes included self-reported MVPA and website engagement. Differences were examined using generalised linear mixed models with intention-to-treat and multiple imputation. RESULTS: Accelerometer-assessed MVPA increased 23% in the control (1.23 (1.06, 1.43)), 12% in the text-tailored (1.12 (0.95, 1.32)) and 28% in the video-tailored (1.28 (1.06, 1.53)) groups at the 3-month follow-up only, though there were no significant between-group differences. Both text-tailored (1.77 (1.37, 2.28]) and video-tailored (1.37 (1.04, 1.79)) groups significantly increased self-reported MVPA more than the control group at 3 months only, but there were no differences between video-tailored and text-tailored groups. The video-tailored group spent significantly more time on the website compared with text-tailored participants (90 vs 77 min, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The personally tailored videos were not more effective than personally tailored text in increasing MVPA. The findings from this study conflict with pilot study outcomes and previous literature. Process evaluation and mediation analyses will provide further insights. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000057583.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".