Tailored physical activity behavior change interventions: challenges and opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A physically active lifestyle provides innumerable benefits; yet, few individuals are physically active enough to reap those benefits. Tailored physical activity interventions may address low rates of physical activity by offering individualized strategies that consider a person's characteristics, needs, preferences, and/or context, rather than the traditional one-size-fits-all approach. However, the tailoring methodology is in its nascency, and an understanding of how best to develop such interventions is needed. In this commentary, we identify future directions to enhance the impact of tailored interventions designed to increase physical activity participation. A multi-country collaborative was established to review the literature and discuss an agenda for future research. Two overarching research opportunities are suggested for improving the development of tailored, behavioral physical activity interventions: (a) optimize the engagement of diverse knowledge users in intervention co-design and (b) examine ethical considerations that may impact the use of technology to support tailored physical activity delivery. Specifically, there is a need for better reporting and evaluation of knowledge user involvement alongside targeting diversity in the inclusion of knowledge users. Furthermore, while technology boasts many opportunities to increase the scale and precision of interventions, examinations of how it impacts recipients' experiences of and participation in tailored interventions are needed to ensure the benefits of technology use outweigh the risks. A better understanding of these research areas will help ensure that the diverse needs of individuals are met, technology is appropriately used to support tailoring, and ultimately it improves the effectiveness of tailored physical activity interventions.
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 | 0.125 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".