Examining moderators of the effectiveness of a web- and video-based computer-tailored physical activity intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding for whom behaviour change interventions work is important, however there is a lack of studies examining potential moderators in such interventions. This study investigated potential moderators on the effectiveness of a computer-tailored intervention to increase physical activity among Australian adults. People who had <150 min of moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) a week, able to speak and read English, aged ≥18 years, lived in Australia, and had internet access were eligible to participate. Participants recruited through social media, emails, and third-party databases, were randomly assigned to either the control (n = 167) or intervention groups (n = 334). Physical activity was measured objectively by ActiGraph GT3X and also by self-report at baseline and three months. Three-way interaction terms were tested to identify moderators (i.e., demographic characteristics, BMI, and perceived neighbourhood walkability). The results showed that the three-way interaction was marginally significant for sex on accelerometer measured MVPA/week (p = 0.061) and steps/day (p = 0.047). The intervention appeared to be more effective for women compared to men. No significant three-way interactions were found for the other potential moderators. Strategies to improve levels of personalisation may be needed so that physical activity interventions can be better tailored to different subgroups, especially sex, and therefore improve intervention effectiveness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".